5 ms·

The UK is slowly realizing that being all alone and isolated is no fun at all…

by tacker2000 3y ago

Veen 3y ago
UK Horizon membership was negotiated and agreed in the 2020 EU/UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement. It’s nothing to do with a slow realization, just an agreement on terms. The EU was dragging its feet.
- orra 3y ago
  Unbridled nonsense. From the FAQ: > Why did it take you so long to negotiate? > The conditions for associating the UK were not opportune, in view of the overall EU-UK relationship. The agreement on the Windsor Framework allowed association talks to resume. Therefore, it is now time to move forward with the final steps for associating the UK. Yes, that's an EU source, but it's right. Before the Windsor Framework, the UK was routinely threatening to break the trade agreement it had only just ratified.
  - traceroute66 3y ago
    > the UK was routinely threatening to break the trade agreement it had only just ratified. Indeed. The UK was constantly throwing tantrums because it couldn't have its cake and eat it. The EU wouldn't let the UK cherry-pick. Brexit was frankly the worst decision in UK history. It wasn't a fair vote because of the pack of lies sold by the Leave side in which the UK media were complicit. People simply don't realise quite what a good seat at the table the UK had. The UK wasn't "just another EU member", the UK had more carve-outs and other benefits than almost any other member.
    - misnome 3y ago
      > It wasn't a fair vote because of the pack of lies sold by the Leave side in which the UK media were complicit. It wasn’t a fair vote because of deliberate disenfranchisement. UK citizens settled abroad weren’t allowed a say because the vote was only “advisory”. It could also be argued that 16-year olds could have been given a say in their entire future (vs, say, a choice of government for the next five years). A minute sliver was also taken as a mandate to veer towards the most ideological extremes.I like to imagine many of the reactions if remain had gotten a tiny majority and in conclusion we had joined the euro and schengen.
      - traceroute66 3y ago
        > It could also be argued that 16-year olds could have been given a say in their entire future Having chatted to a few of that age group about the subject, I agree. That generation is also more flexible, more mobile than the last, so I doubt they would think twice about leaving the UK in pursuit of better opportunities abroad. I mean, if I was 16 again, moving to the EU for Schengen access alone would be highly attractive ! > the euro and schengen The UK was never going to join the euro, that was one of the major carve-outs. There are also other EU countries operating outside the euro and highly-unlikely to change in the foreseeable future. Technically the UK was not in Schengen, sure, again it was another UK carve-out. But with the EU passport there was no practical difference for the holder, you had the same freedom of movement in the Schengen area as a UK(EU) passport holder. Leaving the EU also meant loss of access to EU security databases etc., which is why "stopping the boats" is harder from outside than within.
      - orra 3y ago
        I don't see why UK citizens abroad should get a vote; they should vote abroad. You're right that 16 year olds deserve a vote. It's their future, and 16 year olds are smart and politically engaged. Also there were huge other legitimacy issues, like dodgy donations. And data breaches and highly, highly targeted advertising, allowing Cambridge Analytics to buy a result. That's on top of the leave prospectus (essentially, EFTA + EEA, before the vote) being reinterpreted as the hardest Brexit imaginable.
        noodlesUK 3y ago
        UK Citizens abroad absolutely should get a vote in UK matters, especially when those matters directly affect the relationships with the countries they live in. Don’t forget that if you live abroad, you probably can’t vote in your new country either.
        orra 3y ago
        True, this affected citizens abroad more than normally. But otherwise, I reject the notion that citizenship is more important than residency. If you want a say in the UK, live there. The fact that countries (including the UK) disenfranchise non-citizen residents isn't ideal either.
    - blibble 3y ago
      > Brexit was frankly the worst decision in UK history. Suez? valuing Jamacia over the American colonies? entering world war 2 (economically, morally it was clearly correct) picking gas over nuclear power? the impact of leaving the EU isn't even on the same scale as these decisions (and any impact has already been dwarfed by covid and the russian energy crisis)
      - tialaramex 3y ago
        World War II was in practice not a choice. The timing is a choice. But basically once Hitler controls Germany, it's going to invade its neighbours and it's going to win, and the UK only has a choice of whether and where to fight - if it won't fight it becomes at best a client state, taking orders from Hitler's Germany under threat of invasion once the Germans control mainland Europe. Eventually it will be under German control de facto. For example, as a party to the war, Britain's navy is of course entitled to fire upon German vessels, or ostensibly neutral vessels clearly operating under German control, in the strait. This capability makes Sea Lion (amphibious invasion of Britain) essentially suicide, German troop barges would be destroyed by British Navy vessels, and even if some of the British vessels are damaged or destroyed in the process the manpower losses for Germany are devastating. However if Britain is not a party to the war, those troop barges can just cross the strait unmolested, with no naval support - right up until the troops disembark and begin seizing control of British ports.
        dfawcus 3y ago
        Nah. Once they enter territorial waters, and not engaged in 'innocent passage' they are legitimately a target for us to defend ourselves against. However in 1939, that would have been around 3-4 miles off the shore, so your point largely stands.
    - Veen 3y ago
      Throwing tantrums might more charitably be phrased “protecting its interests”.
  - kergonath 3y ago
    It’s terrible that they feel the need to put this sort of language in such an official document. What is striking is that there is precious little trust on either side and not a lot of goodwill.
    - acdha 3y ago
      Can you be specific about the “sort of language” are you referring to? That seems to be quite diplomatic and fair, so is it perhaps less about the language than that you wish the facts were otherwise?
      - kergonath 3y ago
        I was referring to “The conditions for associating the UK were not opportune, in view of the overall EU-UK relationship”, but there are other sentences like that in the document. It’s a diplomat’s way of calling them untrustworthy bastards. Which is fair (they are referring to May, Johnson and Truss, all of them are liars of the worst sort), but I do wish the facts were otherwise. I don’t blame the EC for saying it, I just regret that the UK took such a destructive path.
        acdha 3y ago
        Ah, I read that as you thinking they were being too harsh when it seemed like a very diplomatic way to make a statement of fact.
  - Veen 3y ago
    Could you point out what I said that was incorrect? The UK agreed to join Horizon when I said it did. The EU prevented that from happening due to trade disagreements over Northern Ireland. Those disagreements were resolved with the Windsor Framework. The UK joined. As I said, it has nothing to do with a sudden change of mind or realisation, but was the intention for many years.
traceroute66 3y ago
> The UK is slowly realizing that being all alone and isolated is no fun at all… I know a handful of people working on Horizon programmes. They all think Brexit was nuts and has largely done irrevocable damage to UK science. Many of the good people have now been poached by EU-based research organisations or universities. In many cases only a very modest golden-handshake was required because they valued continued participation in Horizon more than anything else. Others are still working in the UK, but technically working for an EU organisation, because many organisations set up shop in the EU when they saw the writing on the wall given the governments dogged persual of hard brexit. In other words, in both cases, a loss to the UK economy and for the former, a loss to the UK science community.
- mistrial9 3y ago
  employees see this as a negative, that sounds about right. Meanwhile in the executive branch, fresh rounds of trade and contracts between Commonwealth executives get new life.. am I wrong?
petesergeant 3y ago
Brexit passed by 2%, and had it been sold as “hard Brexit” it wouldn’t have passed at all. Academia was overwhelmingly opposed. The idea that “the UK is slowly realizing” this just seems odd and not in line with the reality of the situation
- tarkin2 3y ago
  Academia is a very small part of the electorate. Academia, and anyone in the sciences, by and large, have always known. The Brexit populace and their media, you could argue, are slowly realising. The vote was an emotional and not a cold and rational vote of course. Whether rationality and practicality is overriding emotions at the moment is debatable.
- kergonath 3y ago
  “In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way.” — Nigel Farage How quickly we forget.
  - traceroute66 3y ago
    > How quickly we forget. How quickly we forget what ? How nobody should listen to a word that Mr Farage has to say ?
7moritz7 3y ago
They already realized when they had to take the separate queues for non-Schengen residents at EU airports. Saw a Tiktok about it yesterday about envy for people being able to walk straight through the automated controls versus the 30 minute queue next to it

The UK is slowly realizing that being all alone and isolated is no fun at all…

Veen 3y ago

UK Horizon membership was negotiated and agreed in the 2020 EU/UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement. It’s nothing to do with a slow realization, just an agreement on terms. The EU was dragging its feet.

orra 3y ago
Unbridled nonsense. From the FAQ: > Why did it take you so long to negotiate? > The conditions for associating the UK were not opportune, in view of the overall EU-UK relationship. The agreement on the Windsor Framework allowed association talks to resume. Therefore, it is now time to move forward with the final steps for associating the UK. Yes, that's an EU source, but it's right. Before the Windsor Framework, the UK was routinely threatening to break the trade agreement it had only just ratified.
- traceroute66 3y ago
  > the UK was routinely threatening to break the trade agreement it had only just ratified. Indeed. The UK was constantly throwing tantrums because it couldn't have its cake and eat it. The EU wouldn't let the UK cherry-pick. Brexit was frankly the worst decision in UK history. It wasn't a fair vote because of the pack of lies sold by the Leave side in which the UK media were complicit. People simply don't realise quite what a good seat at the table the UK had. The UK wasn't "just another EU member", the UK had more carve-outs and other benefits than almost any other member.
  - misnome 3y ago
    > It wasn't a fair vote because of the pack of lies sold by the Leave side in which the UK media were complicit. It wasn’t a fair vote because of deliberate disenfranchisement. UK citizens settled abroad weren’t allowed a say because the vote was only “advisory”. It could also be argued that 16-year olds could have been given a say in their entire future (vs, say, a choice of government for the next five years). A minute sliver was also taken as a mandate to veer towards the most ideological extremes.I like to imagine many of the reactions if remain had gotten a tiny majority and in conclusion we had joined the euro and schengen.
    - traceroute66 3y ago
      > It could also be argued that 16-year olds could have been given a say in their entire future Having chatted to a few of that age group about the subject, I agree. That generation is also more flexible, more mobile than the last, so I doubt they would think twice about leaving the UK in pursuit of better opportunities abroad. I mean, if I was 16 again, moving to the EU for Schengen access alone would be highly attractive ! > the euro and schengen The UK was never going to join the euro, that was one of the major carve-outs. There are also other EU countries operating outside the euro and highly-unlikely to change in the foreseeable future. Technically the UK was not in Schengen, sure, again it was another UK carve-out. But with the EU passport there was no practical difference for the holder, you had the same freedom of movement in the Schengen area as a UK(EU) passport holder. Leaving the EU also meant loss of access to EU security databases etc., which is why "stopping the boats" is harder from outside than within.
    - orra 3y ago
      I don't see why UK citizens abroad should get a vote; they should vote abroad. You're right that 16 year olds deserve a vote. It's their future, and 16 year olds are smart and politically engaged. Also there were huge other legitimacy issues, like dodgy donations. And data breaches and highly, highly targeted advertising, allowing Cambridge Analytics to buy a result. That's on top of the leave prospectus (essentially, EFTA + EEA, before the vote) being reinterpreted as the hardest Brexit imaginable.
      - noodlesUK 3y ago
        UK Citizens abroad absolutely should get a vote in UK matters, especially when those matters directly affect the relationships with the countries they live in. Don’t forget that if you live abroad, you probably can’t vote in your new country either.
        orra 3y ago
        True, this affected citizens abroad more than normally. But otherwise, I reject the notion that citizenship is more important than residency. If you want a say in the UK, live there. The fact that countries (including the UK) disenfranchise non-citizen residents isn't ideal either.
  - blibble 3y ago
    > Brexit was frankly the worst decision in UK history. Suez? valuing Jamacia over the American colonies? entering world war 2 (economically, morally it was clearly correct) picking gas over nuclear power? the impact of leaving the EU isn't even on the same scale as these decisions (and any impact has already been dwarfed by covid and the russian energy crisis)
    - tialaramex 3y ago
      World War II was in practice not a choice. The timing is a choice. But basically once Hitler controls Germany, it's going to invade its neighbours and it's going to win, and the UK only has a choice of whether and where to fight - if it won't fight it becomes at best a client state, taking orders from Hitler's Germany under threat of invasion once the Germans control mainland Europe. Eventually it will be under German control de facto. For example, as a party to the war, Britain's navy is of course entitled to fire upon German vessels, or ostensibly neutral vessels clearly operating under German control, in the strait. This capability makes Sea Lion (amphibious invasion of Britain) essentially suicide, German troop barges would be destroyed by British Navy vessels, and even if some of the British vessels are damaged or destroyed in the process the manpower losses for Germany are devastating. However if Britain is not a party to the war, those troop barges can just cross the strait unmolested, with no naval support - right up until the troops disembark and begin seizing control of British ports.
      - dfawcus 3y ago
        Nah. Once they enter territorial waters, and not engaged in 'innocent passage' they are legitimately a target for us to defend ourselves against. However in 1939, that would have been around 3-4 miles off the shore, so your point largely stands.
  - Veen 3y ago
    Throwing tantrums might more charitably be phrased “protecting its interests”.
- kergonath 3y ago
  It’s terrible that they feel the need to put this sort of language in such an official document. What is striking is that there is precious little trust on either side and not a lot of goodwill.
  - acdha 3y ago
    Can you be specific about the “sort of language” are you referring to? That seems to be quite diplomatic and fair, so is it perhaps less about the language than that you wish the facts were otherwise?
    - kergonath 3y ago
      I was referring to “The conditions for associating the UK were not opportune, in view of the overall EU-UK relationship”, but there are other sentences like that in the document. It’s a diplomat’s way of calling them untrustworthy bastards. Which is fair (they are referring to May, Johnson and Truss, all of them are liars of the worst sort), but I do wish the facts were otherwise. I don’t blame the EC for saying it, I just regret that the UK took such a destructive path.
      - acdha 3y ago
        Ah, I read that as you thinking they were being too harsh when it seemed like a very diplomatic way to make a statement of fact.
- Veen 3y ago
  Could you point out what I said that was incorrect? The UK agreed to join Horizon when I said it did. The EU prevented that from happening due to trade disagreements over Northern Ireland. Those disagreements were resolved with the Windsor Framework. The UK joined. As I said, it has nothing to do with a sudden change of mind or realisation, but was the intention for many years.

traceroute66 3y ago

> The UK is slowly realizing that being all alone and isolated is no fun at all… I know a handful of people working on Horizon programmes. They all think Brexit was nuts and has largely done irrevocable damage to UK science. Many of the good people have now been poached by EU-based research organisations or universities. In many cases only a very modest golden-handshake was required because they valued continued participation in Horizon more than anything else. Others are still working in the UK, but technically working for an EU organisation, because many organisations set up shop in the EU when they saw the writing on the wall given the governments dogged persual of hard brexit. In other words, in both cases, a loss to the UK economy and for the former, a loss to the UK science community.

mistrial9 3y ago
employees see this as a negative, that sounds about right. Meanwhile in the executive branch, fresh rounds of trade and contracts between Commonwealth executives get new life.. am I wrong?

petesergeant 3y ago

Brexit passed by 2%, and had it been sold as “hard Brexit” it wouldn’t have passed at all. Academia was overwhelmingly opposed. The idea that “the UK is slowly realizing” this just seems odd and not in line with the reality of the situation

tarkin2 3y ago
Academia is a very small part of the electorate. Academia, and anyone in the sciences, by and large, have always known. The Brexit populace and their media, you could argue, are slowly realising. The vote was an emotional and not a cold and rational vote of course. Whether rationality and practicality is overriding emotions at the moment is debatable.
kergonath 3y ago
“In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way.” — Nigel Farage How quickly we forget.
- traceroute66 3y ago
  > How quickly we forget. How quickly we forget what ? How nobody should listen to a word that Mr Farage has to say ?

7moritz7 3y ago

They already realized when they had to take the separate queues for non-Schengen residents at EU airports. Saw a Tiktok about it yesterday about envy for people being able to walk straight through the automated controls versus the 30 minute queue next to it