3 ms·

This could be read as an either pro or anti-brexit comment but the fact that it is ambiguous makes it kind of pointless.

by spuz 5y ago

unfocussed_mike 5y ago
If you can read that as a pro-Brexit comment, then the Brexit project succeeded beyond its instigators' wildest dreams. It's not ambiguous at all. Everything in the UK going on right now -- everything -- has a "some of this is unclear or worse because Brexit has destroyed agreements or because proposed, nearly impossible agreements have not been struck" subplot. Brexit has set fire to every kind of international complication. And so here we are with a sucessful fusion lab in the UK, doing the hard work, that is a precursor to a European project that it is really not at all clear we will be able to participate in or benefit from, because crucial parts of the Brexit neo-establishment want the benefits of the agreements without acceding to the legal underpinnings of the agreements.
- CodeGlitch 5y ago
  You do realise that countries can work together without being part of the same trading block? ... If I understand your nonsensical ramblings correctly.
  - DrBazza 5y ago
    And 2 seconds of googling: "The UK will remain part of Iter" https://www.iter.org/newsline/-/3551 https://www.iter.org/newsline/-/3551
    - unfocussed_mike 5y ago
      Your googling would also show that the article dates from more than a year ago. A lot changed. Basically, fundamental disagreements with Europe over predicate treaties mean that the thing we committed to do (remain part of ITER) is under threat, because other things we committed to do (uphold transition agreements regarding Northern Ireland) are in default. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/feb/08/uk-and-european-scientists-urge-eu-to-allow-uk-access-to-10bn-fund-brexit https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/feb/08/uk-and-euro... In this case, the EU is saying, sorry, you possibly can't stay a member of our science club because you promised you'd do certain things that underpin an internationally agreed peace process and you are undoing them. It's a completely legitimate political bargaining point that would not be an issue at all without Brexit. The intent to remain members of ITER and Horizon 2020 is genuinely at risk. All of this underpins my point: everything is more complex because of Brexit -- even staying in things we've said we really really want to stay in.
      - DrBazza 5y ago
        > Your googling would also show that the article dates from more than a year ago. > A lot changed. What changed? The UK participate in ITER still, via F4E. ITER is not just the EU, it's funded by China, the European Union, India, Japan, Russia, South Korea and the United States. Frankly, I don't see what Brexit has to do with HN. There are better places to "discuss" Brexit, and politics, than on HackerNews.
  - unfocussed_mike 5y ago
    > ... If I understand your nonsensical ramblings correctly. If you think they are nonsensical, you do not understand what I am saying. Yes, countries can "work together without being part of the same trading bloc" but trade is not the limit of what Brexit changed. Brexit removes us from the international legal agreements that underpinned that trade. It also removed us from the free movement clause, which is crucial to a lot of science-industry collaborations (the free movement principle was essentially invented to allow professional collaboration in the energy industry). Finally it also removed us from the legal frameworks that underpin several European science funding agreements. Every agreement has to be rewritten, at cost to the process. And every time it is rewritten, the net result for Britain is substantially worse than if we'd not done it. Because you cannot hope to get full membership of any club without agreeing to all the rules. From the article: > The UK is a participant, too. Its full involvement in ITER, however, will require first for Britain to "associate" to certain EU science programmes, something that so far has been held up by disagreements over post-Brexit trading arrangements, particularly in relation to Northern Ireland. Here is just one example of that: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/feb/08/uk-and-european-scientists-urge-eu-to-allow-uk-access-to-10bn-fund-brexit https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/feb/08/uk-and-euro... From that article: > The EU agreed to associate membership for the UK as part of the wider Brexit trade deal struck on Christmas Eve 2020 but it has still not ratified the deal or a similar one with Switzerland, held up by a dispute over a draft treaty binding the country to the bloc. We didn't need to do any of this, there have been no benefits from any of this, and there are no meaningful projected benefits for any of this in our lifetimes.
    - CodeGlitch 5y ago
      > If you think they are nonsensical, you do not understand what I am saying. And I thankyou for clarification :) > but trade is not the limit of what Brexit changed. Here in lies the problem that many Brexitiers had with the EU - it wasn't just a trading bloc, the "club" had a lot of baggage that few people understood - and when people don't understand something, they fear/misstrust it. The message around leaving was focused on GDP and whether we would have roaming chargers or not... and this message fell flat with a lot of voters. I blame the remain side with arrogance and a complete lack of understanding how to deliver a good message. I voted remain BTW, but feel we had a fair vote and it is what it is.
  - A_non_e-moose 5y ago
    It's not a binary thing. It's not either they work together or they don't. Under a common block, trading or otherwise, things are just easier and much closer together. Consider only visas, travel and employment, the complications of these brought by Brexit already distanced any existing and future collaborations by some measure. There is still collaboration of course, and there will be, but it's not what it was before. And this negative trend of distance in collaboration is more worrying in an increasingly threatening environment
  - dj_mc_merlin 5y ago
    Yes, countries work together by making agreements. UK decided to burn perhaps the largest and most fruitful agreements ever made between European countries. What's nonsensical is claiming one can work together after doing the exact opposite of that.
  - A_non_e-moose 5y ago
    It's not a binary thing. It's not either they work together or they don't. Under a common block, trading or otherwise, things are just easier and much closer together. Consider only visas, travel and employment, the complications of these brought by Brexit, already distanced any existing and future collaborations by some measure. There is still collaboration of course, and there will be, but it's not what it was before. And this negative trend of distance in collaboration is more worrying in an increasingly threatening environment.
  - dang 5y ago
    Personal attacks will get you banned here. Please make your substantive points without swipes and name-calling. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- spuz 5y ago
  Thank you for clarifying. The confusion is because your comment could easily be interpreted as a criticism of lazy reporting (everything negative that occurs must be because of brexit) rather than actual criticism due to a real issue beyond how it is reported.
  - unfocussed_mike 5y ago
    Ah!! I actually rewrote it to the form it is now, about 15 seconds after posting it, to try to remove any suggestion it's about the report; it's possible I suppose that some people reacted to it before I did. I went from "paragraph" (as in, in an article) to "parenthetical" in the colloquial sense. Like, literally every process or discussion about anything going on in the country has to have this sidebar about how much worse it is because of all the changes. I don't really read it as confusing because I had the "thanks, disaster capitalists" bit, which should be unambiguous, but I haven't had my coffee, so I will note and upvote your point and think about it next time I write stuff :-)
    - spuz 5y ago
      Honestly, I didn't and still don't really understand the phrase "disaster capitalists" which probably aided the confusion. What is it supposed to mean? Someone who promotes capitalism to the point of disaster? Someone who trades with disaster as their currency? It also doesn't help that you start with "Further evidence that...". You can't assume any of your readers are already on board with your conclusions. In my experience, the kind of people who make these kind of comments tend to be closed to debate and commenting in bad faith. For example "further evidence of political-correctness gone mad" is a classic one.
      - unfocussed_mike 5y ago
        "Disaster capitalism" is a well-established, pretty well known rhetorical term coined by Naomi Klein, a good 15 years ago now. (The book it came from is called The Shock Doctrine) It refers to a kind of capitalism (and capitalist policy-making) that is poised ready to financially exploit the negatives of any economic shock precisely because the people involved have proximity to the very power structures that are unleashing that economic shock. It was a prediction that came true. The Brexit-leaning establishment has made a lot of money out of economic predictions and money movements triggered by Brexit, and the overlap between politicians and hedge funds/investment funds/large non-EU exporters etc. was so close as to suggest the possibility that the legislation has designs for them. "Further evidence that" is just dry humour from a Brit. We are in absolutely deep, deep **** in this country for the next two years; everything is going to be bad because the Brexit transition has unilaterally, not bilaterally, failed.
rmbyrro 5y ago
I was also confused about the ambiguity

This could be read as an either pro or anti-brexit comment but the fact that it is ambiguous makes it kind of pointless.

by spuz 5y ago

This could be read as an either pro or anti-brexit comment but the fact that it is ambiguous makes it kind of pointless.

unfocussed_mike 5y ago

If you can read that as a pro-Brexit comment, then the Brexit project succeeded beyond its instigators' wildest dreams. It's not ambiguous at all. Everything in the UK going on right now -- everything -- has a "some of this is unclear or worse because Brexit has destroyed agreements or because proposed, nearly impossible agreements have not been struck" subplot. Brexit has set fire to every kind of international complication. And so here we are with a sucessful fusion lab in the UK, doing the hard work, that is a precursor to a European project that it is really not at all clear we will be able to participate in or benefit from, because crucial parts of the Brexit neo-establishment want the benefits of the agreements without acceding to the legal underpinnings of the agreements.

CodeGlitch 5y ago
You do realise that countries can work together without being part of the same trading block? ... If I understand your nonsensical ramblings correctly.
- DrBazza 5y ago
  And 2 seconds of googling: "The UK will remain part of Iter" https://www.iter.org/newsline/-/3551 https://www.iter.org/newsline/-/3551
  - unfocussed_mike 5y ago
    Your googling would also show that the article dates from more than a year ago. A lot changed. Basically, fundamental disagreements with Europe over predicate treaties mean that the thing we committed to do (remain part of ITER) is under threat, because other things we committed to do (uphold transition agreements regarding Northern Ireland) are in default. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/feb/08/uk-and-european-scientists-urge-eu-to-allow-uk-access-to-10bn-fund-brexit https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/feb/08/uk-and-euro... In this case, the EU is saying, sorry, you possibly can't stay a member of our science club because you promised you'd do certain things that underpin an internationally agreed peace process and you are undoing them. It's a completely legitimate political bargaining point that would not be an issue at all without Brexit. The intent to remain members of ITER and Horizon 2020 is genuinely at risk. All of this underpins my point: everything is more complex because of Brexit -- even staying in things we've said we really really want to stay in.
    - DrBazza 5y ago
      > Your googling would also show that the article dates from more than a year ago. > A lot changed. What changed? The UK participate in ITER still, via F4E. ITER is not just the EU, it's funded by China, the European Union, India, Japan, Russia, South Korea and the United States. Frankly, I don't see what Brexit has to do with HN. There are better places to "discuss" Brexit, and politics, than on HackerNews.
- unfocussed_mike 5y ago
  > ... If I understand your nonsensical ramblings correctly. If you think they are nonsensical, you do not understand what I am saying. Yes, countries can "work together without being part of the same trading bloc" but trade is not the limit of what Brexit changed. Brexit removes us from the international legal agreements that underpinned that trade. It also removed us from the free movement clause, which is crucial to a lot of science-industry collaborations (the free movement principle was essentially invented to allow professional collaboration in the energy industry). Finally it also removed us from the legal frameworks that underpin several European science funding agreements. Every agreement has to be rewritten, at cost to the process. And every time it is rewritten, the net result for Britain is substantially worse than if we'd not done it. Because you cannot hope to get full membership of any club without agreeing to all the rules. From the article: > The UK is a participant, too. Its full involvement in ITER, however, will require first for Britain to "associate" to certain EU science programmes, something that so far has been held up by disagreements over post-Brexit trading arrangements, particularly in relation to Northern Ireland. Here is just one example of that: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/feb/08/uk-and-european-scientists-urge-eu-to-allow-uk-access-to-10bn-fund-brexit https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/feb/08/uk-and-euro... From that article: > The EU agreed to associate membership for the UK as part of the wider Brexit trade deal struck on Christmas Eve 2020 but it has still not ratified the deal or a similar one with Switzerland, held up by a dispute over a draft treaty binding the country to the bloc. We didn't need to do any of this, there have been no benefits from any of this, and there are no meaningful projected benefits for any of this in our lifetimes.
  - CodeGlitch 5y ago
    > If you think they are nonsensical, you do not understand what I am saying. And I thankyou for clarification :) > but trade is not the limit of what Brexit changed. Here in lies the problem that many Brexitiers had with the EU - it wasn't just a trading bloc, the "club" had a lot of baggage that few people understood - and when people don't understand something, they fear/misstrust it. The message around leaving was focused on GDP and whether we would have roaming chargers or not... and this message fell flat with a lot of voters. I blame the remain side with arrogance and a complete lack of understanding how to deliver a good message. I voted remain BTW, but feel we had a fair vote and it is what it is.
- A_non_e-moose 5y ago
  It's not a binary thing. It's not either they work together or they don't. Under a common block, trading or otherwise, things are just easier and much closer together. Consider only visas, travel and employment, the complications of these brought by Brexit already distanced any existing and future collaborations by some measure. There is still collaboration of course, and there will be, but it's not what it was before. And this negative trend of distance in collaboration is more worrying in an increasingly threatening environment
- dj_mc_merlin 5y ago
  Yes, countries work together by making agreements. UK decided to burn perhaps the largest and most fruitful agreements ever made between European countries. What's nonsensical is claiming one can work together after doing the exact opposite of that.
- A_non_e-moose 5y ago
  It's not a binary thing. It's not either they work together or they don't. Under a common block, trading or otherwise, things are just easier and much closer together. Consider only visas, travel and employment, the complications of these brought by Brexit, already distanced any existing and future collaborations by some measure. There is still collaboration of course, and there will be, but it's not what it was before. And this negative trend of distance in collaboration is more worrying in an increasingly threatening environment.
- dang 5y ago
  Personal attacks will get you banned here. Please make your substantive points without swipes and name-calling. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
spuz 5y ago
Thank you for clarifying. The confusion is because your comment could easily be interpreted as a criticism of lazy reporting (everything negative that occurs must be because of brexit) rather than actual criticism due to a real issue beyond how it is reported.
- unfocussed_mike 5y ago
  Ah!! I actually rewrote it to the form it is now, about 15 seconds after posting it, to try to remove any suggestion it's about the report; it's possible I suppose that some people reacted to it before I did. I went from "paragraph" (as in, in an article) to "parenthetical" in the colloquial sense. Like, literally every process or discussion about anything going on in the country has to have this sidebar about how much worse it is because of all the changes. I don't really read it as confusing because I had the "thanks, disaster capitalists" bit, which should be unambiguous, but I haven't had my coffee, so I will note and upvote your point and think about it next time I write stuff :-)
  - spuz 5y ago
    Honestly, I didn't and still don't really understand the phrase "disaster capitalists" which probably aided the confusion. What is it supposed to mean? Someone who promotes capitalism to the point of disaster? Someone who trades with disaster as their currency? It also doesn't help that you start with "Further evidence that...". You can't assume any of your readers are already on board with your conclusions. In my experience, the kind of people who make these kind of comments tend to be closed to debate and commenting in bad faith. For example "further evidence of political-correctness gone mad" is a classic one.
    - unfocussed_mike 5y ago
      "Disaster capitalism" is a well-established, pretty well known rhetorical term coined by Naomi Klein, a good 15 years ago now. (The book it came from is called The Shock Doctrine) It refers to a kind of capitalism (and capitalist policy-making) that is poised ready to financially exploit the negatives of any economic shock precisely because the people involved have proximity to the very power structures that are unleashing that economic shock. It was a prediction that came true. The Brexit-leaning establishment has made a lot of money out of economic predictions and money movements triggered by Brexit, and the overlap between politicians and hedge funds/investment funds/large non-EU exporters etc. was so close as to suggest the possibility that the legislation has designs for them. "Further evidence that" is just dry humour from a Brit. We are in absolutely deep, deep **** in this country for the next two years; everything is going to be bad because the Brexit transition has unilaterally, not bilaterally, failed.

rmbyrro 5y ago

I was also confused about the ambiguity