8 ms·

Britain’s scientists are freaking out over Brexit

89 points by antimora 10y ago

Normal_gaussian 10y ago
I have had the unusual pleasure of being amongst two distinct groups of people over the last few months. Firstly, a group of businessowners. 'local' businesses though most have strong ties to the local port or northern regions of France. Pre-brexit they were mostly close mouthed on the issue, though personal conversations indicated a lean to leave. Post brexit they are generally quite happy; their foreign affairs are relatively easy to keep in order and they have just gained leverage on the local stage. The other group is composed of PhD students and their professors. I'm a casual aquaintance to these people, mainly on the student end, and have dropped in for lunch a few times (and after work pints). These guys are all anti brexit. I know from the way they make up stories about why people voted out and then insult them - its quite unpleasant. From what I gather very little of their funding comes from the EU, but I'm not familliar enough with their funding system to judge them on it. It seems we have a shit ton of echo chambers in this country.
- andy_ppp 10y ago
  >>> It seems we have a shit ton of echo chambers in this country. Good to see your comprehensive survey supported your view :-D
  - Normal_gaussian 10y ago
    Hey! Don't criticise my methods! It's statistical I tell you, statistical! In a similar vein I had a friend try to tell me that a 4% difference represented a landslide.
- nothrabannosir 10y ago
  > their foreign affairs are relatively easy to keep in order and they have just gained leverage on the local stage. Just about this part: nothing has actually changed relatively significantly at all, yet. Article 50 has not even been triggered. The UK first has to notify the EU of intent to leave, then they have to actually leave, then the effects will slowly start trickling in (whatever they are), and in the mean time so many confounding factors will be mixed in that we will probably never find out what came whence. > It seems we have a shit ton of echo chambers in this country. Is that anything new? Humans everywhere always. And?
  - Normal_gaussian 10y ago
    I answered this point in another comment but to be more direct - they are happy that the negative effects will be minimal and have made moves to negate them via open conversations to their partners. These aren't huge businesses, they have <100 employees each and they know all their foreign partners personally.
- gakada 10y ago
  > I know from the way they make up stories about why people voted out and then insult them - its quite unpleasant You dismiss the possibility that they are right. Many people do support Brexit for wholly racist reasons (e.g. my father who wants to 'get the poles out').
  - tomp 10y ago
    That's not racism. Xenophobia, maybe, but obviously not racism.
    - saalweachter 10y ago
      Why is it obviously not racism?
      - mhenr18 10y ago
        Suppose you're of the view that a mass influx of people into your country that are willing to work for less than the locals are will do harm to the economy. If one country's economy is weaker than yours and is a source of immigration from people seeking greater opportunity (and who'll do anything to get it, including undercutting locals), is it racist to want to stop immigration from that country? It's definitely protectionist and perhaps xenophobic but I don't think it's racist. (There is a clear distinction between xenophobia and racism - xenophobia is purely about an unjustified dislike for those from other countries while racism is an unjustified dislike for those who look different to you)
      - tomp 10y ago
        Because Polish and British people are of the same race (white/Caucasian).
        foldr 10y ago
        There are no racial requirements on being British.
        saalweachter 10y ago
- tjallingt 10y ago
  I found this online: https://royalsociety.org/~/media/policy/projects/eu-uk-funding/uk-membership-of-eu.pdf https://royalsociety.org/~/media/policy/projects/eu-uk-fundi... Seemingly this is a pretty unbiased source (but who knows nowadays). In that document it states that most of EU's research funding for the UK ends up going to higher education, and it accounts for 9.7% of their total budget. This doesn't sound like much but it's a considerable amount of money and it isn't spread equally over all areas of research. Of course there is also pan-European research in/from the UK which will be hit by far the hardest (and one could argue is among some of the more important research). So depending on their area of research your PhD student/professor connections might have a good reason to be upset. Of course it is bad for anyone to take out their feelings on other people by making up stories/insulting them. But then again I question what your own motives are in posting this comment online. Especially considering that there are plenty of people who seem to have the opposite experience. With your last sentence i wholeheartedly agree (as sad as it makes me). These days it seems that most people aren't even aware that they place themselves in a position where no one disagrees with them (see Facebook).
  - Normal_gaussian 10y ago
    My motivations are mainly a frustration over the lack of useful discussion and the propensity of people to lock themselves into certain discussional tropes. I'm also massively conflicted over the kinds of people I want to br working amongst; whilst Academics tend towards the childish the business class tends towards the immoral. I'm actually surprised that its as low as 9.7%, though of course that is direct funding and won't account for losses from businesses and who move (large banks bankroll the local Uni) or reduce spending. What is notable in the funding is a decidedly different attitude to dealing with the problem, though this may simply be that researchers can't do much to affect funding wheras business iwners can. As for echo chambers specifically - it can be heart-wrenching to be amongst several groups. The previous Scottish referendum caused significant damage to my family relationships, and the brexit is doing the same to my friends. There are few people willing to consider they don't and can't know all the facts.
- Angostura 10y ago
  > Post brexit they are generally quite happy They're not post-Brexit. Currently the will be reaping the benefits of the low pound for exports, plus still have access to the European market, plus still be able to employ nice cheap Eastern European labour if they so wish. Let's wait until they are actually post-Brexit, shall we?
  - Normal_gaussian 10y ago
    No, we are all aware of that. What I intended to convey was that they are not worried. They have talked to their partners made a bunch of pre arrangements, and essentially decided that all is, and will be, well.
tim333 10y ago
I've got a hunch brexit basically isn't going to happen. The vote was advisory and our new PM was a remainer. It's incredibly difficult to really leave without screwing the economy. See http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2016/07/14/everything-you-need-to-know-about-theresa-may-s-brexit http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2016/07/14/everything-you-ne... The article concludes May will probably kick the problem into the long grass which she seems to be doing by saying it won't happen without Scottish agreement which probably won't happen.
- Nursie 10y ago
  She hasn't said that. Sturgeon painted her comments that way, but what she said was a solution that worked for the whole nation, nothing about Scottish agreement or consent. If Brexit doesn't happen then the mainstream will be handing power to UKIP who will, quite rightly, be able to say that democracy in the UK is a sham. I don't want that, Brexit must happen.
  - cstross 10y ago
    > She hasn't said that. She can't say that. If she said it openly, it wouldn't be a viable strategy. The problem we've got right now is that multiple political power centers are locked into a multi-way game of chicken over Brexit, which can only be resolved by pulling the trigger on Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty or by definitively ruling it out -- and whoever takes responsibility for making it happen (or not happen) will catch a career-ending shitstorm of abuse from the other side.
  - lucb1e 10y ago
    > who will, quite rightly, be able to say that democracy in the UK is a sham. Except that there is also a large amount of people that had no idea of the consequences. Lots of people were calling for a re-vote afterwards because "oh shit this is actually not so great after all". Which is okay, actually -- it should be possible to change your mind when you see something doesn't work the way you want it (it'd be great if politicians did this more).
    - 10y ago
MistahKoala 10y ago
But nowhere near as much as headline writers are.
cm2187 10y ago
The UK is a net payer of the EU budget. It can replace all EU subsidies like for like and still save some money as a result of Brexit.
- gtf21 10y ago
  Irrelevant really, as cross-EU collaborations have been hugely important to UK-based research. Additionally, we're a net beneficiary of EU research funding.
- vertex-four 10y ago
  It can - will it, though, is the question. And what about ten years down the line?
- spatulan 10y ago
  Assuming the economy doesn't weaken and we find ourselves with less money to spend.
- junto 10y ago
  It could but it won't. Same as economic support for the Celtic fringes. Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are not going to see the same level of investment from Whitehall that they have from Brussels. When Margaret Thatcher took aim at the trade unions and in one full swoop killed off various b British industries, she made no British attempt to fix the problem. It took EU money and EU programs to setup enterprise zones in the Celtic fringes. UK governments have long ignored the needs of the country outside the south east. Same as investment in the NHS, which although not funded by the EU has badly needed structured investment for decades. Never happens. Successive governments just blame their predecessors or bad management and on this the cycle.
  - HillRat 10y ago
    The EU also funds, e.g., nursing education programmes at ex-polys that aren't likely to survive a post-Brexit funding winter. NHS staffing isn't quite so critical -- NHS is highly reliant on immigration from the Commonwealth more than the EU -- but it still would pose a concern.
gggggg11111 10y ago
Britain has enough of "experts" apparently https://next.ft.com/content/3be49734-29cb-11e6-83e4-abc22d5d108c https://next.ft.com/content/3be49734-29cb-11e6-83e4-abc22d5d... The whole Brexit hoopla was filled with dishonesty and anti-intellectualism that would make likes of Trump proud no wonder scientists are suffering, sure who needs experts...
- sievebrain 10y ago
  The claim you're making is itself an example of dishonesty and anti-intellectualism. Let's take a look at what Gove actually said - the full quote, not the abridged version people like to throw around: "I think the people in this country have had enough of experts from organisations with acronyms saying that they know what is best and getting it consistently wrong" Gove was clearly talking about a very specific subset of all possible 'experts' here - the ones from various (mostly governmental) acronymed organisations who have a long track record of making incorrect forecasts and yet still claim to be able to predict the future using their 'expertise'. The campaign was full of absurdly precise predictions like "leaving the EU will cost each household exactly £4300 a year". Gove's position is not unreasonable or anti-intellectual. Post-vote, Paul Krugman started laying into economists and the economics profession as a whole, saying essentially that economists didn't deserve to be trusted because they so often made arguments that were just intellectual-sounding nonsense. http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/06/30/the-macroeconomics-of-brexit-motivated-reasoning/?module=BlogPost-Title&version=Blog%20Main&contentCollection=Opinion&action=Click&pgtype=Blogs&region=Body http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/06/30/the-macroeconomi... http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/07/02/more-on-the-short-run-macroeconomics-of-brexit/?module=BlogPost-Title&version=Blog%20Main&contentCollection=Opinion&action=Click&pgtype=Blogs&region=Body http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/07/02/more-on-the-shor...
  - anon1385 10y ago
    >Gove was clearly talking about a very specific subset of all possible 'experts' here - the ones from various (mostly governmental) acronymed organisations The question was about the following "experts" (it was Gove who defined them as experts not the interviewer): >The leaders of the US, India, China, Australia, every single one of our allies, the Bank of England, the IFS, the IMF, the CBI, five former NATO secretary generals, the chief executive of the NHS and most of the leaders of the trade unions in Britain
unfunco 10y ago
I voted to remain, I believe that being in the EU is beneficial to the United Kingdom. This article, however, at the very beginning suggests: > Britain has been a powerhouse of discovery since the age of science began. Newton, Darwin, Crick? They parted the curtain on gravity, evolution and DNA. > Now comes Brexit, and to use a non-scientific term, the scientists in the country are freaking out. Britain joined the EEC in 1973, the discovery of gravity, evolution, and deoxyribonucleic acid, all happened well before we joined the union and happened without EU funding. I don't think the sciences will suffer too much from a withdrawal of EU funding, since the government will want to remain a leader in these fields, the industries that will suffer will be agricultural and manufacturing, fields that are deemed to primitive for the current century.
- sievebrain 10y ago
  Agriculture might benefit because the UK now has the option of allowing GM crops, which the EU tries hard to block for what it claims are health reasons but (given the lack of scientific evidence to support such a policy) is actually yet another form of agricultural protectionism.
  - Angostura 10y ago
    Actually the claims are primarily on environmental reasons - horizontal gene flow etc.
  - unfunco 10y ago
    Farming is heavily subsidised by the EU though, only this morning the Independent was reporting that farmers are now regretting the decision since their funding could be lost, and that they voted leave because they didn't understand the ramifications: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/farmers-brexit-regret-bregret-funding-common-agricultural-policy-a7163996.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/farmers-brexit-regret-b... It could be spin, the farmers I know though (I'm originally from a very rural town in mid-Wales) don't really understand what GM means, they're old school wellies and corn hanging out their mouth types.
jimmytidey 10y ago
I think the cultural angle is much overlooked here. Yes, a lot of funding comes from the EU, but it's about more than money. In a University you work with many people from all over the world, and success depends on doing so. Of course you end up favouring international cooperation at a policy level. Your values are shaped by your personal experience.
- Silhouette 10y ago
  In a University you work with many people from all over the world, and success depends on doing so. This is the thing I don't quite understand about the position described in the article here. We already do have partnerships with other researchers from all over the world, not just the EU. I've seen some academics talking as if it will suddenly be impossible for colleagues from other EU member states to come and work in our universities, or vice versa. Sometimes they were literally making that argument with a colleague from a US university sitting on one side of them and a colleague from Japan on the other! There are plenty of legitimate concerns that will need to be addressed, and the uncertainty in the near future affecting those planning longer term projects or research funding isn't helpful. However, the idea that it will become dramatically more difficult to collaborate with colleagues from the other EU member states or to run research programmes together seems paranoid at this stage.
lorenzhs 10y ago
Since most of the discussion here seems to revolve around funding, let me point out that the article is mostly about other factors: "Worse than a possible dip in funding is the research community’s fear that collaborators abroad will slink away and the island’s universities will find themselves isolated. [...] The community is asking: Will the foreigners continue to be welcome in British laboratories and will British researchers continue be partners with collaborators from abroad?" Funding can be replaced, but if foreign researchers have a harder time getting into Britain, that could be a problem for research in the UK
- sigzero 10y ago
  Maybe the EU needs to rethink that "free movement" part.
  - greendesk 10y ago
    [edited for clarity]: Maybe the UK needs to rethink that "blame anyone but UK" part. The current Brexit discussion is too close to the Euro Sausage movie of Yes, Minister: away from reality, but political maneuvering to put blame on non-UK entity for internal squabbles. The U.K. Politicians worked to outsource its politics to the EU. Back to free movement:I do not see reasons to rethink or restrict free movement; without it life will be more red tape and bureaucracy. I do not want free movement to be reconsidered.
    - tim333 10y ago
      It's ironic that the EU did allow a transitional period before countries had to allow free movement, to prevent richer counties being flooded with Poles and the like and the UK turned that down so Polish people looking for work came there from 2004 whereas they couldn't work in Germany till 2011 for example. Now the brexiters tend to blame the EU for having too many Polish turning up when much of it was a UK government choice. Indeed mostly the choice of Tony Blair which he still defends: http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/666822/Tony-Blair-migrants-Poland-politics-eastern-Europe http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/666822/Tony-Blair-migrants-...
chrisbennet 10y ago
Sometimes when my friends and I go to a restaurant we've never been to, we look at the menu and change our minds and decide to go somewhere else. Can the UK do something like that i.e. get the best terms possible from the EU and then put that to a vote?
- DanBC 10y ago
  >Can the UK do something like that i.e. get the best terms possible from the EU and then put that to a vote? They already did that. EU was (understandably) tired of UK wanting to get yet more special treatment, so didn't offer much to Cameron when he went round.
  - Chris2048 10y ago
    > EU was (understandably) tired of UK wanting to get yet more special treatment Same negative characterisation the Greeks were given when they dared defy the EU. Can you give me any example of treatment wrt the EU and UK that was unfair?; The UK didn't seem to get as much out of the EU as many continental countries.
- tigershark 10y ago
  Uk had the best possible deal in the EU. Now, as a best case, they will pay the same amount of money (like Norway and Switzerland), they will still have free circulation from EU people (like Norway and Switzerland) to have access to the EU market without all the benefits that they enjoyed earlier. And this is the best case, I can't imagine UK cut off from Europe with all the jobs in the City of London and Canary Wharf that will migrate somewhere else, along with all the other industries that are heavily disinvesting as of now.
  - chrisbennet 10y ago
    I don't think they will have free circulation so I think that the "best case" will be worse (than Norway & Switzerland).
  - Chris2048 10y ago
icefo 10y ago
Same kind of thing is happening in Switzerland. The people voted to restrict the number of foreigners that can go in the country which is against the treaty of free movement that Switzerland signed with the EU which probably (it has been a while since I looked up the consequences) make lots if not all the other treaties that Switzerland and the EU signed invalid. For example the EU is threatening to cut research funding among other stuff like partnership in space exploration... The people that were against the law didn't think it would pass and didn't really fight against it and now Switzerland and the EU have until the end of year to agree on something. I wonder how it will pan out... Maybe a revote ? You probably didn't understand the consequences of this law. Are you sure you want this ?
- Kenji 10y ago
  Yes, I'm sure I want this. Are you sure you want to get bribed with money for science to completely give up every single shred of independence and autonomy? The issue is much larger than science funding. The issue is that the EU bullies and pushes everyone in Europe around at its whim and people are incredibly fearful of taking back control of their own countries because of EU repercussions. Just think: The EU threatens to cancel student exchanges with Switzerland if the Swiss control their borders again. These are absolutely disgusting power plays: The student exchange has a longstanding tradition and existed way before the EU shat in its diapers, and during a time where border controls were very strict. And now it thinks it can just cancel that? Why isn't anyone calling the EU out on this? The Swiss people voted for something, it would be unconstitutional and even illegal not to do it now. If this does not happen, the Swiss direct democracy has been overruled by the EU, which would be an extremely dangerous and undemocratic precedent.
  - lukasLansky 10y ago
    Do you have source for "EU wants to forbid student exchange between willing parties", or did I misunderstand you and you are trying to say that EU is evil because they don't want to pay for the stuff from EU pocket?
    - 10y ago
known 10y ago
"Diversity society will fail" --Putnam; http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/the_downside_of_diversity/ http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/t...
interfixus 10y ago
Utterly true, and a dawning realization among ever an ever growing proportion of citizens all over the EU. I shall be surprised - and disappointed - if the whole monstrous edifice hasn't collapsed from own weight and inner contradictions within the next five years. Bring on the downvotes.
- thomasahle 10y ago
  We really need something like the EU though. Solving all issues with bilateral agreements is basically a consensus democracy. If everyone has to agree on everything, we'll never be able to solve larger problems such as tax evasion and the environment.
  - michaelbuddy 10y ago
    The countries in the EU prospered on their own before the EU. The EU open border policy comes with a draconian refugee policy. That's unacceptable. Citizens of a country deserve autonomy. And if that means at the expense of open borders and less draconian rule, so be it.
    - greendesk 10y ago
      Like the UK prospered at a time it was making Leyland cars? It is a misjudgment of history to call that time 'prospered' - words like 'persevered' and 'survived' come to mind, definitely not 'prospered'. I remember a political guide - "glorify the near history, in 20-30 years ago. People had forgotten their problems for that time, and associate the time with a positive feel. This happens regardless of reality. Any time earlier than that would not yield any memory whatsoever, so stick with ~20-30 years ago." Unfortunately, you misjudge history and put a false spin on it. Please, don't lie to Hackernews readers claiming people prospored.
      - michaelbuddy 10y ago
        I'm 'lying to hacker news' because I said the UK prospered in the past? Please.

89 points by antimora 10y ago

I have had the unusual pleasure of being amongst two distinct groups of people over the last few months. Firstly, a group of businessowners. 'local' businesses though most have strong ties to the local port or northern regions of France. Pre-brexit they were mostly close mouthed on the issue, though personal conversations indicated a lean to leave. Post brexit they are generally quite happy; their foreign affairs are relatively easy to keep in order and they have just gained leverage on the local stage. The other group is composed of PhD students and their professors. I'm a casual aquaintance to these people, mainly on the student end, and have dropped in for lunch a few times (and after work pints). These guys are all anti brexit. I know from the way they make up stories about why people voted out and then insult them - its quite unpleasant. From what I gather very little of their funding comes from the EU, but I'm not familliar enough with their funding system to judge them on it. It seems we have a shit ton of echo chambers in this country.

andy_ppp 10y ago
>>> It seems we have a shit ton of echo chambers in this country. Good to see your comprehensive survey supported your view :-D
- Normal_gaussian 10y ago
  Hey! Don't criticise my methods! It's statistical I tell you, statistical! In a similar vein I had a friend try to tell me that a 4% difference represented a landslide.
nothrabannosir 10y ago
> their foreign affairs are relatively easy to keep in order and they have just gained leverage on the local stage. Just about this part: nothing has actually changed relatively significantly at all, yet. Article 50 has not even been triggered. The UK first has to notify the EU of intent to leave, then they have to actually leave, then the effects will slowly start trickling in (whatever they are), and in the mean time so many confounding factors will be mixed in that we will probably never find out what came whence. > It seems we have a shit ton of echo chambers in this country. Is that anything new? Humans everywhere always. And?
- Normal_gaussian 10y ago
  I answered this point in another comment but to be more direct - they are happy that the negative effects will be minimal and have made moves to negate them via open conversations to their partners. These aren't huge businesses, they have <100 employees each and they know all their foreign partners personally.
gakada 10y ago
> I know from the way they make up stories about why people voted out and then insult them - its quite unpleasant You dismiss the possibility that they are right. Many people do support Brexit for wholly racist reasons (e.g. my father who wants to 'get the poles out').
- tomp 10y ago
  That's not racism. Xenophobia, maybe, but obviously not racism.
  - saalweachter 10y ago
    Why is it obviously not racism?
    - mhenr18 10y ago
      Suppose you're of the view that a mass influx of people into your country that are willing to work for less than the locals are will do harm to the economy. If one country's economy is weaker than yours and is a source of immigration from people seeking greater opportunity (and who'll do anything to get it, including undercutting locals), is it racist to want to stop immigration from that country? It's definitely protectionist and perhaps xenophobic but I don't think it's racist. (There is a clear distinction between xenophobia and racism - xenophobia is purely about an unjustified dislike for those from other countries while racism is an unjustified dislike for those who look different to you)
    - tomp 10y ago
      Because Polish and British people are of the same race (white/Caucasian).
      - foldr 10y ago
        There are no racial requirements on being British.
      - saalweachter 10y ago
tjallingt 10y ago
I found this online: https://royalsociety.org/~/media/policy/projects/eu-uk-funding/uk-membership-of-eu.pdf https://royalsociety.org/~/media/policy/projects/eu-uk-fundi... Seemingly this is a pretty unbiased source (but who knows nowadays). In that document it states that most of EU's research funding for the UK ends up going to higher education, and it accounts for 9.7% of their total budget. This doesn't sound like much but it's a considerable amount of money and it isn't spread equally over all areas of research. Of course there is also pan-European research in/from the UK which will be hit by far the hardest (and one could argue is among some of the more important research). So depending on their area of research your PhD student/professor connections might have a good reason to be upset. Of course it is bad for anyone to take out their feelings on other people by making up stories/insulting them. But then again I question what your own motives are in posting this comment online. Especially considering that there are plenty of people who seem to have the opposite experience. With your last sentence i wholeheartedly agree (as sad as it makes me). These days it seems that most people aren't even aware that they place themselves in a position where no one disagrees with them (see Facebook).
- Normal_gaussian 10y ago
  My motivations are mainly a frustration over the lack of useful discussion and the propensity of people to lock themselves into certain discussional tropes. I'm also massively conflicted over the kinds of people I want to br working amongst; whilst Academics tend towards the childish the business class tends towards the immoral. I'm actually surprised that its as low as 9.7%, though of course that is direct funding and won't account for losses from businesses and who move (large banks bankroll the local Uni) or reduce spending. What is notable in the funding is a decidedly different attitude to dealing with the problem, though this may simply be that researchers can't do much to affect funding wheras business iwners can. As for echo chambers specifically - it can be heart-wrenching to be amongst several groups. The previous Scottish referendum caused significant damage to my family relationships, and the brexit is doing the same to my friends. There are few people willing to consider they don't and can't know all the facts.
Angostura 10y ago
> Post brexit they are generally quite happy They're not post-Brexit. Currently the will be reaping the benefits of the low pound for exports, plus still have access to the European market, plus still be able to employ nice cheap Eastern European labour if they so wish. Let's wait until they are actually post-Brexit, shall we?
- Normal_gaussian 10y ago
  No, we are all aware of that. What I intended to convey was that they are not worried. They have talked to their partners made a bunch of pre arrangements, and essentially decided that all is, and will be, well.

tim333 10y ago

I've got a hunch brexit basically isn't going to happen. The vote was advisory and our new PM was a remainer. It's incredibly difficult to really leave without screwing the economy. See http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2016/07/14/everything-you-need-to-know-about-theresa-may-s-brexit http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2016/07/14/everything-you-ne... The article concludes May will probably kick the problem into the long grass which she seems to be doing by saying it won't happen without Scottish agreement which probably won't happen.

Nursie 10y ago
She hasn't said that. Sturgeon painted her comments that way, but what she said was a solution that worked for the whole nation, nothing about Scottish agreement or consent. If Brexit doesn't happen then the mainstream will be handing power to UKIP who will, quite rightly, be able to say that democracy in the UK is a sham. I don't want that, Brexit must happen.
- cstross 10y ago
  > She hasn't said that. She can't say that. If she said it openly, it wouldn't be a viable strategy. The problem we've got right now is that multiple political power centers are locked into a multi-way game of chicken over Brexit, which can only be resolved by pulling the trigger on Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty or by definitively ruling it out -- and whoever takes responsibility for making it happen (or not happen) will catch a career-ending shitstorm of abuse from the other side.
- lucb1e 10y ago
  > who will, quite rightly, be able to say that democracy in the UK is a sham. Except that there is also a large amount of people that had no idea of the consequences. Lots of people were calling for a re-vote afterwards because "oh shit this is actually not so great after all". Which is okay, actually -- it should be possible to change your mind when you see something doesn't work the way you want it (it'd be great if politicians did this more).
  - 10y ago

MistahKoala 10y ago

But nowhere near as much as headline writers are.

cm2187 10y ago

The UK is a net payer of the EU budget. It can replace all EU subsidies like for like and still save some money as a result of Brexit.

gtf21 10y ago
Irrelevant really, as cross-EU collaborations have been hugely important to UK-based research. Additionally, we're a net beneficiary of EU research funding.
vertex-four 10y ago
It can - will it, though, is the question. And what about ten years down the line?
spatulan 10y ago
Assuming the economy doesn't weaken and we find ourselves with less money to spend.
junto 10y ago
It could but it won't. Same as economic support for the Celtic fringes. Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are not going to see the same level of investment from Whitehall that they have from Brussels. When Margaret Thatcher took aim at the trade unions and in one full swoop killed off various b British industries, she made no British attempt to fix the problem. It took EU money and EU programs to setup enterprise zones in the Celtic fringes. UK governments have long ignored the needs of the country outside the south east. Same as investment in the NHS, which although not funded by the EU has badly needed structured investment for decades. Never happens. Successive governments just blame their predecessors or bad management and on this the cycle.
- HillRat 10y ago
  The EU also funds, e.g., nursing education programmes at ex-polys that aren't likely to survive a post-Brexit funding winter. NHS staffing isn't quite so critical -- NHS is highly reliant on immigration from the Commonwealth more than the EU -- but it still would pose a concern.

gggggg11111 10y ago

Britain has enough of "experts" apparently https://next.ft.com/content/3be49734-29cb-11e6-83e4-abc22d5d108c https://next.ft.com/content/3be49734-29cb-11e6-83e4-abc22d5d... The whole Brexit hoopla was filled with dishonesty and anti-intellectualism that would make likes of Trump proud no wonder scientists are suffering, sure who needs experts...

sievebrain 10y ago
The claim you're making is itself an example of dishonesty and anti-intellectualism. Let's take a look at what Gove actually said - the full quote, not the abridged version people like to throw around: "I think the people in this country have had enough of experts from organisations with acronyms saying that they know what is best and getting it consistently wrong" Gove was clearly talking about a very specific subset of all possible 'experts' here - the ones from various (mostly governmental) acronymed organisations who have a long track record of making incorrect forecasts and yet still claim to be able to predict the future using their 'expertise'. The campaign was full of absurdly precise predictions like "leaving the EU will cost each household exactly £4300 a year". Gove's position is not unreasonable or anti-intellectual. Post-vote, Paul Krugman started laying into economists and the economics profession as a whole, saying essentially that economists didn't deserve to be trusted because they so often made arguments that were just intellectual-sounding nonsense. http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/06/30/the-macroeconomics-of-brexit-motivated-reasoning/?module=BlogPost-Title&version=Blog%20Main&contentCollection=Opinion&action=Click&pgtype=Blogs&region=Body http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/06/30/the-macroeconomi... http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/07/02/more-on-the-short-run-macroeconomics-of-brexit/?module=BlogPost-Title&version=Blog%20Main&contentCollection=Opinion&action=Click&pgtype=Blogs&region=Body http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/07/02/more-on-the-shor...
- anon1385 10y ago
  >Gove was clearly talking about a very specific subset of all possible 'experts' here - the ones from various (mostly governmental) acronymed organisations The question was about the following "experts" (it was Gove who defined them as experts not the interviewer): >The leaders of the US, India, China, Australia, every single one of our allies, the Bank of England, the IFS, the IMF, the CBI, five former NATO secretary generals, the chief executive of the NHS and most of the leaders of the trade unions in Britain

unfunco 10y ago

I voted to remain, I believe that being in the EU is beneficial to the United Kingdom. This article, however, at the very beginning suggests: > Britain has been a powerhouse of discovery since the age of science began. Newton, Darwin, Crick? They parted the curtain on gravity, evolution and DNA. > Now comes Brexit, and to use a non-scientific term, the scientists in the country are freaking out. Britain joined the EEC in 1973, the discovery of gravity, evolution, and deoxyribonucleic acid, all happened well before we joined the union and happened without EU funding. I don't think the sciences will suffer too much from a withdrawal of EU funding, since the government will want to remain a leader in these fields, the industries that will suffer will be agricultural and manufacturing, fields that are deemed to primitive for the current century.

sievebrain 10y ago
Agriculture might benefit because the UK now has the option of allowing GM crops, which the EU tries hard to block for what it claims are health reasons but (given the lack of scientific evidence to support such a policy) is actually yet another form of agricultural protectionism.
- Angostura 10y ago
  Actually the claims are primarily on environmental reasons - horizontal gene flow etc.
- unfunco 10y ago
  Farming is heavily subsidised by the EU though, only this morning the Independent was reporting that farmers are now regretting the decision since their funding could be lost, and that they voted leave because they didn't understand the ramifications: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/farmers-brexit-regret-bregret-funding-common-agricultural-policy-a7163996.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/farmers-brexit-regret-b... It could be spin, the farmers I know though (I'm originally from a very rural town in mid-Wales) don't really understand what GM means, they're old school wellies and corn hanging out their mouth types.

jimmytidey 10y ago

I think the cultural angle is much overlooked here. Yes, a lot of funding comes from the EU, but it's about more than money. In a University you work with many people from all over the world, and success depends on doing so. Of course you end up favouring international cooperation at a policy level. Your values are shaped by your personal experience.

Silhouette 10y ago
In a University you work with many people from all over the world, and success depends on doing so. This is the thing I don't quite understand about the position described in the article here. We already do have partnerships with other researchers from all over the world, not just the EU. I've seen some academics talking as if it will suddenly be impossible for colleagues from other EU member states to come and work in our universities, or vice versa. Sometimes they were literally making that argument with a colleague from a US university sitting on one side of them and a colleague from Japan on the other! There are plenty of legitimate concerns that will need to be addressed, and the uncertainty in the near future affecting those planning longer term projects or research funding isn't helpful. However, the idea that it will become dramatically more difficult to collaborate with colleagues from the other EU member states or to run research programmes together seems paranoid at this stage.

lorenzhs 10y ago

Since most of the discussion here seems to revolve around funding, let me point out that the article is mostly about other factors: "Worse than a possible dip in funding is the research community’s fear that collaborators abroad will slink away and the island’s universities will find themselves isolated. [...] The community is asking: Will the foreigners continue to be welcome in British laboratories and will British researchers continue be partners with collaborators from abroad?" Funding can be replaced, but if foreign researchers have a harder time getting into Britain, that could be a problem for research in the UK

sigzero 10y ago
Maybe the EU needs to rethink that "free movement" part.
- greendesk 10y ago
  [edited for clarity]: Maybe the UK needs to rethink that "blame anyone but UK" part. The current Brexit discussion is too close to the Euro Sausage movie of Yes, Minister: away from reality, but political maneuvering to put blame on non-UK entity for internal squabbles. The U.K. Politicians worked to outsource its politics to the EU. Back to free movement:I do not see reasons to rethink or restrict free movement; without it life will be more red tape and bureaucracy. I do not want free movement to be reconsidered.
  - tim333 10y ago
    It's ironic that the EU did allow a transitional period before countries had to allow free movement, to prevent richer counties being flooded with Poles and the like and the UK turned that down so Polish people looking for work came there from 2004 whereas they couldn't work in Germany till 2011 for example. Now the brexiters tend to blame the EU for having too many Polish turning up when much of it was a UK government choice. Indeed mostly the choice of Tony Blair which he still defends: http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/666822/Tony-Blair-migrants-Poland-politics-eastern-Europe http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/666822/Tony-Blair-migrants-...

chrisbennet 10y ago

Sometimes when my friends and I go to a restaurant we've never been to, we look at the menu and change our minds and decide to go somewhere else. Can the UK do something like that i.e. get the best terms possible from the EU and then put that to a vote?

DanBC 10y ago
>Can the UK do something like that i.e. get the best terms possible from the EU and then put that to a vote? They already did that. EU was (understandably) tired of UK wanting to get yet more special treatment, so didn't offer much to Cameron when he went round.
- Chris2048 10y ago
  > EU was (understandably) tired of UK wanting to get yet more special treatment Same negative characterisation the Greeks were given when they dared defy the EU. Can you give me any example of treatment wrt the EU and UK that was unfair?; The UK didn't seem to get as much out of the EU as many continental countries.
tigershark 10y ago
Uk had the best possible deal in the EU. Now, as a best case, they will pay the same amount of money (like Norway and Switzerland), they will still have free circulation from EU people (like Norway and Switzerland) to have access to the EU market without all the benefits that they enjoyed earlier. And this is the best case, I can't imagine UK cut off from Europe with all the jobs in the City of London and Canary Wharf that will migrate somewhere else, along with all the other industries that are heavily disinvesting as of now.
- chrisbennet 10y ago
  I don't think they will have free circulation so I think that the "best case" will be worse (than Norway & Switzerland).
- Chris2048 10y ago

icefo 10y ago

Same kind of thing is happening in Switzerland. The people voted to restrict the number of foreigners that can go in the country which is against the treaty of free movement that Switzerland signed with the EU which probably (it has been a while since I looked up the consequences) make lots if not all the other treaties that Switzerland and the EU signed invalid. For example the EU is threatening to cut research funding among other stuff like partnership in space exploration... The people that were against the law didn't think it would pass and didn't really fight against it and now Switzerland and the EU have until the end of year to agree on something. I wonder how it will pan out... Maybe a revote ? You probably didn't understand the consequences of this law. Are you sure you want this ?

Kenji 10y ago
Yes, I'm sure I want this. Are you sure you want to get bribed with money for science to completely give up every single shred of independence and autonomy? The issue is much larger than science funding. The issue is that the EU bullies and pushes everyone in Europe around at its whim and people are incredibly fearful of taking back control of their own countries because of EU repercussions. Just think: The EU threatens to cancel student exchanges with Switzerland if the Swiss control their borders again. These are absolutely disgusting power plays: The student exchange has a longstanding tradition and existed way before the EU shat in its diapers, and during a time where border controls were very strict. And now it thinks it can just cancel that? Why isn't anyone calling the EU out on this? The Swiss people voted for something, it would be unconstitutional and even illegal not to do it now. If this does not happen, the Swiss direct democracy has been overruled by the EU, which would be an extremely dangerous and undemocratic precedent.
- lukasLansky 10y ago
  Do you have source for "EU wants to forbid student exchange between willing parties", or did I misunderstand you and you are trying to say that EU is evil because they don't want to pay for the stuff from EU pocket?
  - 10y ago

known 10y ago

"Diversity society will fail" --Putnam; http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/the_downside_of_diversity/ http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/t...

interfixus 10y ago

Utterly true, and a dawning realization among ever an ever growing proportion of citizens all over the EU. I shall be surprised - and disappointed - if the whole monstrous edifice hasn't collapsed from own weight and inner contradictions within the next five years. Bring on the downvotes.

thomasahle 10y ago
We really need something like the EU though. Solving all issues with bilateral agreements is basically a consensus democracy. If everyone has to agree on everything, we'll never be able to solve larger problems such as tax evasion and the environment.
- michaelbuddy 10y ago
  The countries in the EU prospered on their own before the EU. The EU open border policy comes with a draconian refugee policy. That's unacceptable. Citizens of a country deserve autonomy. And if that means at the expense of open borders and less draconian rule, so be it.
  - greendesk 10y ago
    Like the UK prospered at a time it was making Leyland cars? It is a misjudgment of history to call that time 'prospered' - words like 'persevered' and 'survived' come to mind, definitely not 'prospered'. I remember a political guide - "glorify the near history, in 20-30 years ago. People had forgotten their problems for that time, and associate the time with a positive feel. This happens regardless of reality. Any time earlier than that would not yield any memory whatsoever, so stick with ~20-30 years ago." Unfortunately, you misjudge history and put a false spin on it. Please, don't lie to Hackernews readers claiming people prospored.
    - michaelbuddy 10y ago
      I'm 'lying to hacker news' because I said the UK prospered in the past? Please.