|
In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note. Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon. All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting. https://www.registertovote.service.gov.uk |
Boris Johnson's explanation is plausible. I can imagine it being a difficult issue for someone and trying to argue either way could help someone make up their mind. If it were somebody I thought had more integrity then I would give them the benefit of the doubt and presume they were honestly trying to make up their mind. But it's Boris...
Tbh, people knew about the existence of the article months ago. It was only that people hadn't read it. It is actually quite mild an article and the only bad part about it is its existence, so I guess it won't change anything. Except maybe more people know about it now.
I can't believe I am defending Boris Johnson. There are many legitimate reasons to be upset with him and to dislike him but this one seems tame.
|
United Kingdom13774 Posts
Tame, but also lame. I felt it was sort of cringeworthy.
|
LONDON — When Adam Durant started his company analyzing climate-related threats to aircraft, he and his team of researchers symbolized the possibilities offered by the European Union.
Soon after graduating from college, Mr. Durant received a prestigious European Union grant to study atmospheric chemistry and conduct climate-related research. When he started his business, he hired staff members from Belgium and France without having to sponsor their visas.
But since Britain voted in June to leave the bloc, Mr. Durant has become the archetype of something very different: a nervous entrepreneur, unsure about future funding and even considering leaving the country.
His worries mirror those of the British business community at large, and the concerns appear to be weighing on the country’s economy.
Technically, nothing has changed since the referendum. But a vast number of questions remain, including the shape of Britain’s future trading relationship with the European Union and the long-term rights of European nationals now working in the country.
The widespread uncertainty, and the challenges that arise from it, are acutely felt in the scientific community, dependent as it is on long-term funding, cross-border mobility and international collaboration.
“It’s probable that the opportunities that existed pre-Brexit won’t exist next year,” Mr. Durant, 37, said. “Things are becoming more difficult.”
Britain has long been a global leader in scientific research because of world-class universities that produce top scientific papers.
In particular, the country excels at health sciences and advanced engineering, areas that have thrived partly because of factors tied to Britain’s membership in the bloc.
Though much of the debate before the referendum focused on Britain’s financial payments to the European Union, the science sector has unquestionably benefited from membership, receiving net contributions of 3.4 billion euros, or about $3.7 billion, from a variety of European Union programs from 2007 to 2013.
European Union money accounted for 40 percent of funding for cancer research in Britain over the last decade, according to Digital Science, a consulting firm based in London. In nanotechnology research, that figure is 62 percent, and in evolutionary biology, it is 67 percent.
Those resources have plugged the gap in falling British government funding, adjusted for inflation, and low levels of investment from Britain’s private sector, figures from Digital Science show. British businesses contribute the equivalent of 1.06 percent of their country’s gross domestic product toward research and development, 80 percent less than what German companies contribute toward research and development in Germany.
The country has also attracted talent from across Europe. That is largely because of the relative ease of doing business in Britain, coupled with ecosystems developed around top universities, and that the bloc’s free movement of labor means no citizen of a European Union member country requires a visa to work in Britain.
Around 30,000 scientists and researchers from member states are employed by British universities — equivalent to 20 percent of their teaching and research staff — and a full 60 percent of research papers in Britain are written with partners in the European Union.
All of those factors are crucial to Mr. Durant and his fledgling business.
After getting his degree, he went on to obtain a Ph.D. In 2007, he received a Marie Curie Fellowship, which finances research across the bloc. Then, after the eruption in 2010 of an Icelandic volcano that disrupted global air travel, he started Satavia.
The company was founded in 2013 with initial funding of €500,000 from the European Space Agency — which is partly funded by the European Union and works closely with the bloc — along with a promise of up to €4 million more. Satavia, which helps aircraft detect threats like ice and volcanic ash, now employs four scientists in Cambridge.
“European funding has been critical to the success” of the company, Mr. Durant said.
But shortly after the Brexit vote, he was turned away from a research network involving European partners. He has since stopped writing research proposals because of the uncertainty. He is even considering moving Satavia’s headquarters from Britain.
Source
|
On October 16 2016 18:14 Artisreal wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2016 02:45 bardtown wrote:On October 16 2016 02:01 Artisreal wrote:On October 15 2016 16:32 bardtown wrote:On October 15 2016 03:42 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On October 14 2016 03:40 bardtown wrote:On October 14 2016 03:28 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Don't want to restart the whole debate again, but some of your assertations are just ridiculous bardtown. 1) The money UK gives to the EU is comparable with every other rich EU country. UK even has gained net money in regards to health treatments because of the vast amounts of elderly who receive free health treatment within the EU. 2) UK has benefited from immensely free movement of EU country's nationals. Perhaps there are some uneducated losers in UK.
In the end, you asked to be treated like an adult, but when you act like an child who thinks that wishful thinking is the same as reality, when you make untrue statements, how can we talk to you like you are an adult capable of reasoned thinking? Every rich country is getting shafted, yes. We happen to be one of the biggest, and therefore make one of the biggest contributions. And your second statement is, like the last comment I responded to, nothing but hot air. How do you quantify benefit from free movement relative to selective, controlled immigration? The obvious reality is that we are better off selecting who can enter the country based on their skills and history, not having an open border for every illiterate thug who wants to make more money than they would at home. Wow, just wow. I think I'll just quote this every time you ask to be spoken to like an adult. I'd rather you didn't acknowledge me at all. You have the reading comprehension of a six year old. RE Scotland: You know that many of the syrian refugees arriving are well educated, right? Nevermind, forget it. I'm so glad that britain diddn't do, what you suppose it should be doing now, 75 years ago. Irrelevant statement, followed by some weird conjecture about what I 'suppose Britain should be doing'. I was not talking about Syrians, I was talking about Europeans. Yes, I know that there are many well educated and wealthy Syrians moving to Europe and many destitute, injured and disabled Syrians left to die because you (Germany) are so obsessed with virtue signalling, since the events of 75 years ago, that you would rather waste all your funds on people who don't need it than divert them to people who do but are less visible. Despite 'many' Syrians (proportionally a small number) being educated, the majority are essentially unemployable in Germany or any developed economy, and almost none are employable without subsidies that would be far more efficient in almost any other country in the world. As for what I suppose Britain should be doing - what are you even referring to? I am very much in favour of Britain's humanitarian interventions and high aid budget. On October 16 2016 02:42 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On October 16 2016 02:01 Artisreal wrote:On October 15 2016 16:32 bardtown wrote:On October 15 2016 03:42 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On October 14 2016 03:40 bardtown wrote:On October 14 2016 03:28 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Don't want to restart the whole debate again, but some of your assertations are just ridiculous bardtown. 1) The money UK gives to the EU is comparable with every other rich EU country. UK even has gained net money in regards to health treatments because of the vast amounts of elderly who receive free health treatment within the EU. 2) UK has benefited from immensely free movement of EU country's nationals. Perhaps there are some uneducated losers in UK.
In the end, you asked to be treated like an adult, but when you act like an child who thinks that wishful thinking is the same as reality, when you make untrue statements, how can we talk to you like you are an adult capable of reasoned thinking? Every rich country is getting shafted, yes. We happen to be one of the biggest, and therefore make one of the biggest contributions. And your second statement is, like the last comment I responded to, nothing but hot air. How do you quantify benefit from free movement relative to selective, controlled immigration? The obvious reality is that we are better off selecting who can enter the country based on their skills and history, not having an open border for every illiterate thug who wants to make more money than they would at home. Wow, just wow. I think I'll just quote this every time you ask to be spoken to like an adult. I'd rather you didn't acknowledge me at all. You have the reading comprehension of a six year old. RE Scotland: https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/786898407860436992 You know that many of the syrian refugees arriving are well educated, right? Nevermind, forget it. I'm so glad that britain diddn't do, what you suppose it should be doing now, 75 years ago. judging by how he mangles the English language, are certainly more eloquent in his own native toungue than he is. Examples, please. Note the misspelling of 'tongue' and the redundant 'own'. Fair enough. I was mistaken with regards to your actual target, I apologise. Concerning your "illiterate thugs" statement. Are you sure that you are talking about the right demographic? Brexit: Hate crimes up fivefold in week after UK vote to leave EUHate crimes soared by 41% after Brexit vote, official figures revealAnyway, I will get back when I have more time. Cheerios and keep it civil
Because the existence of thugs in the UK means that there are none in the EU? I cannot even remember the last time I posted in this thread and received a relevant response. We already have violent, obnoxious bullies in the UK - what harm can a few million more do?
Kill me.
On October 16 2016 18:21 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2016 18:33 bardtown wrote:On October 14 2016 15:38 Rebs wrote:On October 14 2016 15:08 RvB wrote:On October 14 2016 06:56 bardtown wrote:On October 14 2016 05:14 Deleuze wrote:On October 14 2016 03:40 bardtown wrote:On October 14 2016 03:28 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Don't want to restart the whole debate again, but some of your assertations are just ridiculous bardtown. 1) The money UK gives to the EU is comparable with every other rich EU country. UK even has gained net money in regards to health treatments because of the vast amounts of elderly who receive free health treatment within the EU. 2) UK has benefited from immensely free movement of EU country's nationals. Perhaps there are some uneducated losers in UK.
In the end, you asked to be treated like an adult, but when you act like an child who thinks that wishful thinking is the same as reality, when you make untrue statements, how can we talk to you like you are an adult capable of reasoned thinking? Every rich country is getting shafted, yes. We happen to be one of the biggest, and therefore make one of the biggest contributions. And your second statement is, like the last comment I responded to, nothing but hot air. How do you quantify benefit from free movement relative to selective, controlled immigration? The obvious reality is that we are better off selecting who can enter the country based on their skills and history, not having an open border for every illiterate thug who wants to make more money than they would at home. So what you're saying is that they'd be out-competing our home grown illiterate thugs in illiterate thuggery? You run the risk of creating home grown thugs when you take away their outlets for self improvement, such as entry level jobs and education/training. On October 14 2016 05:26 RvB wrote:On October 14 2016 03:40 bardtown wrote:On October 14 2016 03:28 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Don't want to restart the whole debate again, but some of your assertations are just ridiculous bardtown. 1) The money UK gives to the EU is comparable with every other rich EU country. UK even has gained net money in regards to health treatments because of the vast amounts of elderly who receive free health treatment within the EU. 2) UK has benefited from immensely free movement of EU country's nationals. Perhaps there are some uneducated losers in UK.
In the end, you asked to be treated like an adult, but when you act like an child who thinks that wishful thinking is the same as reality, when you make untrue statements, how can we talk to you like you are an adult capable of reasoned thinking? Every rich country is getting shafted, yes. We happen to be one of the biggest, and therefore make one of the biggest contributions. And your second statement is, like the last comment I responded to, nothing but hot air. How do you quantify benefit from free movement relative to selective, controlled immigration? The obvious reality is that we are better off selecting who can enter the country based on their skills and history, not having an open border for every illiterate thug who wants to make more money than they would at home. What surprises me about your view on immigration is that you're generally liberal and against government intervention (correct me if I'm wrong here) but when it comes down to immigration you think the government has the ability to accurately assess whether an immigrant is really necessary or not. Labels really don't fit me well, but I'm liberal beyond certain thresholds, I guess. Left to its own devices the market would lay waste to everything of any value, though, so as usual the middle ground needs to be found. The government should protect our heritage/culture, our areas of natural beauty and our people against the market, to a reasonable extent which democracy exists to determine. I think uncontrolled immigration is a significant threat to culture and to people (particularly with regards to addressing inequality). The beautiful thing about a referendum is that it offers a low-level assessment of a complex system. Complex systems are unpredictable. We can talk about whether immigration benefits the country all we like, referencing all sorts of figures and theories, but we're so far abstracted from what's actually happening in these discussions that making a reliable assessment is extremely difficult. An individual's anecdotal evidence is even more useless, but the anecdotal experiences of 35 million people in concert give a fairly reliable idea of the country's perception of a topic. It's something like predicting the weather. The higher resolution your data, the more reliable your prediction. One prediction you might take from the referendum is that the current level of immigration is unsustainable, and that this perception is very strongly held by the more disadvantaged people likely to be negatively impacted by it. Some - many - fall back on blaming the media for this perception, or point to public ignorance of the statistics people throw around about immigration providing a net benefit. To the media point, I would say that the tabloid media sells copies by sensationalising stories in line with the underlying mood of their reader base. In other words, it plays on existing concerns but does not direct them. To the net benefit point, I would just reiterate what I said before about complex systems and the efficacy of direct democracy in a situation like this, where certain groups are disproportionately impacted, whether positively or negatively. If the majority of the wealth that immigration brings goes to big business then it's not in the interests of the poor natives to support immigration. That's the whole point of democracy, right? To prevent the vested interests of the few outweighing those of the many. What you call beautiful is actually the biggest problem with a referendum. You're reducing an incredibly complex problem into a yes or no question. All it tells you is that 52% of voters want to leave the EU. It doesn't tell you why, how and under what circumstances they want to leave. That it's due to immigration is your interpretation not what the referendum actually measured. If we look at Brexit for example. So we know now that 52% of the voters wanted to leave the EU at that particular moment. A hard Brexit looks increasingly likely but we don't know if a hard Brexit would still have a majority. Nobody asked the voters if they want a hard Brexit, a soft Brexit or if staying in the EU is preferrable to a hard Brexit. In the end you're stuck with the same politicians making all the real choices and we don't even know if it's what the people actually want. Yeah I lol'ed complex systems are unpredictable, so lets just over simplify everything to reduce the randomness in the decision making process? I wish everything worked like that. So they actually end up voting to fuck themselves over so that in the new even more complex situation just created by their 'simplistic' decision, your children will grow in a shittier situation, but thats ok because the sacrifice is worth it in the long run. You're missing the point, maybe because I'm using complex in a technical sense. A complex system arises from many local interactions of many low level parts. I could go into real depth about this but I won't because I doubt anyone is interested, but the general principle is that organic, low-level self organisation results in the most efficient configuration for the emergent entity. In other words, democracy works because each individual is best placed to make an assessment of their local situation, not because they are capable of understanding the entire system. It is this nation-wide collection of localised perspectives that provides the best measure of the system as a whole, because the system is actually nothing more than the collective of these localised parts. Of course the downside is that there is no one-size-fits-all solution to each local scenario, but when the decision is necessarily binary, there's no better way to make the judgement. I would be quite happy to have freedom of movement between London and the EU if it was an option, but the one-size-fits-all problem works both ways. Most are unhappy with the EU, and when localised adaptation is not an option we have to go with the majority. As for the single market, it stands in the way of all the major aims of Brexiteers. Regaining sovereignty, reducing immigration, pursuing trade with emergent economies and closer ties with the Commonwealth, etc. I think hard Brexit or no Brexit is accurate, although I would think that the first stage of negotiations should be to agree membership of the single market for 5 years or so until a trade deal is finalised. You're talking about spontaneous order of which the market (Smith's invisible hand) is an example. A referendum isn't like that at all. Spontaneous order works because everyone has influence in the ultimate outcome including minorities. With political decisions in a referendum or democracy the outcome is decided by a simple majority with the minority being coerced to follow the line. This is actually one of the arguments made by liberals of why as much as possible should be kept out of the political sphere. You're the one missing the point. Brexit isn't a simple binary choice. There are many forms or Brexit (soft, hard and everything in between) or staying in the EU (as evidenced by all the exemptions Britain already gets). It also neglects the fact that a lot of future decisions and lawmaking are dependent on whether you stay in the EU or not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_order
Spontaneous order is a feature of complex systems. The entire fucking point is that the system cannot reorganise itself to address its problems because of the EU. You're on point about liberals, at least: the EU is big government - no, huge, huge government - that is so far removed from the low-level of the system that it is entirely understandable that they have no idea what is going on there and how their enforced ideology-from-above and blanket policy inflicts damage on local communities. None of this changes the fact that a low-level assessment of the system provides the best measurement of what change is required.
Somewhat off topic, this leads into some pretty complicated theory about where the optimum level for government is (i.e. how large/standardised the system should be). Again, no one size fits all solution. It's context dependent. That's part of the reason that the history of Europe is a seething mess of empires/nations/city states flitting in and out of existence as new optimums emerge. This in itself is a complex system. I am convinced on a general principle though: neither big nor small government is the future. There will never be truly global government, there will always be great nations exploiting the efficiency of their size, there will always be small nations exploiting the tenuous stability established by the great nations and specialising. This balance will be constantly reassessed.
For the UK (or at least England) the nation state is the optimum level. We have almost nothing to gain from pooling military with the EU. Likewise for intelligence. We have a lot to lose in terms of trade, where the EU is clunky and protectionist and represents an ever decreasing share of world trade. We have a lot to lose from open borders. We have a lot to lose from encroachment on our institutions and degradation of our culture.
'Brexit' is just a word. What people voted for was sovereignty - including control of trade, immigration and lawmaking. 'Brexit' is whatever delivers on what people voted for. The slogan of the campaign was 'Take back control'. You take back nothing by staying in the single market. Eventually you guys will get this blindingly obvious point.
On that note, I intend to stop posting in this thread. It's clear I'm not making any impression whatsoever so the only thing I achieve is causing myself frustration.
|
But with the price of what? I am sick of talking about brexit at this point but so long story short, the whole bloody thing is an emotional ride, there is nothing smart or strategic about it but showing the world what a fool of the nation is. Everything that has been going on since June is relied on 'we are special and you will treat us special' and then shit exploded when things don't go with people wishful thinking. Theresa May lost all credibility at this point and people are afraid for her to speak more.
I'll put it this way like a British (English) would say, EU might as well kick UK out because all UK has been doing to EU is about being obstructive in this and that anyway (eg like the trading deal with India). See? When things don't go well, turn around and blame on others, it is never my fault, full English, your commoner English of course. The bottomline is that like I said back in very beginning in this thread pre-brexit, the poor are going to be poorer, they are not going to get a paid raise (by sending the poles home) ever by moaning and complaining or blaming shit on foreigners and EU. And guess who are the selfish dimwits who voted out (I'm not saying all brexiter are dumb, but the people who believes the lies and go full bigot on street), most likely the poor/uneducated.
Ok you get a referendum result, people want to quit, ok fine, make a big analytical team with scientist finance analysts to lay out all the pros and cons and outlining all the concerns (this is also critical for planning your negotiation with EU), and then ask people again if they still want to out, and if they still do, bloody don't make racist comments and pissing off all business owners in one day and then use what you previously found out from the impact analysis to negotiate with EU. If you truly want to out, so be it, but this whole mess right now is a pure emotional ride and nothing else. Well, ruining average people lives that's what is happening now.
I am the generation where we get hit by the recession hardest, and we just came out from that since 2013 and now we go again. I'm the frustrated one here (and all the people who don't want out).
|
On October 19 2016 16:14 BurningSera wrote: But with the price of what? I am sick of talking about brexit at this point but so long story short, the whole bloody thing is an emotional ride, there is nothing smart or strategic about it but showing the world what a fool of the nation is. Everything that has been going on since June is relied on 'we are special and you will treat us special' and then shit exploded when things don't go with people wishful thinking. Theresa May lost all credibility at this point and people are afraid for her to speak more.
I'll put it this way like a British (English) would say, EU might as well kick UK out because all UK has been doing to EU is about being obstructive in this and that anyway (eg like the trading deal with India). See? When things don't go well, turn around and blame on others, it is never my fault, full English, your commoner English of course. The bottomline is that like I said back in very beginning in this thread pre-brexit, the poor are going to be poorer, they are not going to get a paid raise (by sending the poles home) ever by moaning and complaining or blaming shit on foreigners and EU. And guess who are the selfish dimwits who voted out (I'm not saying all brexiter are dumb, but the people who believes the lies and go full bigot on street), most likely the poor/uneducated.
Ok you get a referendum result, people want to quit, ok fine, make a big analytical team with scientist finance analysts to lay out all the pros and cons and outlining all the concerns (this is also critical for planning your negotiation with EU), and then ask people again if they still want to out, and if they still do, bloody don't make racist comments and pissing off all business owners in one day and then use what you previously found out from the impact analysis to negotiate with EU. If you truly want to out, so be it, but this whole mess right now is a pure emotional ride and nothing else. Well, ruining average people lives that's what is happening now.
I am the generation where we get hit by the recession hardest, and we just came out from that since 2013 and now we go again. I'm the frustrated one here (and all the people who don't want out).
The pro EU crowd were riding very high on the economic question, but the people who voted Brexit didn't give a damn because they were getting shafted either way. Not many of those that voted to leave gave a shit about what the globalists said, or what the finance "experts" said, or cared when the scientists began decrying the fact that they'll get less money.
The rich were getting richer, and the poor were getting poorer as the current trends were going anyhow. At least with a Brexit the question of national sovereignty will be answered.
|
On October 19 2016 18:33 Madkipz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2016 16:14 BurningSera wrote: But with the price of what? I am sick of talking about brexit at this point but so long story short, the whole bloody thing is an emotional ride, there is nothing smart or strategic about it but showing the world what a fool of the nation is. Everything that has been going on since June is relied on 'we are special and you will treat us special' and then shit exploded when things don't go with people wishful thinking. Theresa May lost all credibility at this point and people are afraid for her to speak more.
I'll put it this way like a British (English) would say, EU might as well kick UK out because all UK has been doing to EU is about being obstructive in this and that anyway (eg like the trading deal with India). See? When things don't go well, turn around and blame on others, it is never my fault, full English, your commoner English of course. The bottomline is that like I said back in very beginning in this thread pre-brexit, the poor are going to be poorer, they are not going to get a paid raise (by sending the poles home) ever by moaning and complaining or blaming shit on foreigners and EU. And guess who are the selfish dimwits who voted out (I'm not saying all brexiter are dumb, but the people who believes the lies and go full bigot on street), most likely the poor/uneducated.
Ok you get a referendum result, people want to quit, ok fine, make a big analytical team with scientist finance analysts to lay out all the pros and cons and outlining all the concerns (this is also critical for planning your negotiation with EU), and then ask people again if they still want to out, and if they still do, bloody don't make racist comments and pissing off all business owners in one day and then use what you previously found out from the impact analysis to negotiate with EU. If you truly want to out, so be it, but this whole mess right now is a pure emotional ride and nothing else. Well, ruining average people lives that's what is happening now.
I am the generation where we get hit by the recession hardest, and we just came out from that since 2013 and now we go again. I'm the frustrated one here (and all the people who don't want out). The pro EU crowd were riding very high on the economic question, but the people who voted Brexit didn't give a damn because they were getting shafted either way. Not many of those that voted to leave gave a shit about what the globalists said, or what the finance "experts" said, or cared when the scientists began decrying the fact that they'll get less money. The rich were getting richer, and the poor were getting poorer as the current trends were going anyhow. At least with a Brexit the question of national sovereignty will be answered. But the rich will keep getting richer and the poor will still get poorer. The brexit vote did not change a thing about that. If your house is being invaded dont set it on fire. That doesnt make any sense.
|
but at the same time, there was a power transfer from the rulers to the ruled. the brits have a much better chance of changing something within UK than they ever had of changing something within EU.
|
On October 19 2016 03:10 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +LONDON — When Adam Durant started his company analyzing climate-related threats to aircraft, he and his team of researchers symbolized the possibilities offered by the European Union.
Soon after graduating from college, Mr. Durant received a prestigious European Union grant to study atmospheric chemistry and conduct climate-related research. When he started his business, he hired staff members from Belgium and France without having to sponsor their visas.
But since Britain voted in June to leave the bloc, Mr. Durant has become the archetype of something very different: a nervous entrepreneur, unsure about future funding and even considering leaving the country.
His worries mirror those of the British business community at large, and the concerns appear to be weighing on the country’s economy.
Technically, nothing has changed since the referendum. But a vast number of questions remain, including the shape of Britain’s future trading relationship with the European Union and the long-term rights of European nationals now working in the country.
The widespread uncertainty, and the challenges that arise from it, are acutely felt in the scientific community, dependent as it is on long-term funding, cross-border mobility and international collaboration.
“It’s probable that the opportunities that existed pre-Brexit won’t exist next year,” Mr. Durant, 37, said. “Things are becoming more difficult.”
Britain has long been a global leader in scientific research because of world-class universities that produce top scientific papers.
In particular, the country excels at health sciences and advanced engineering, areas that have thrived partly because of factors tied to Britain’s membership in the bloc.
Though much of the debate before the referendum focused on Britain’s financial payments to the European Union, the science sector has unquestionably benefited from membership, receiving net contributions of 3.4 billion euros, or about $3.7 billion, from a variety of European Union programs from 2007 to 2013.
European Union money accounted for 40 percent of funding for cancer research in Britain over the last decade, according to Digital Science, a consulting firm based in London. In nanotechnology research, that figure is 62 percent, and in evolutionary biology, it is 67 percent.
Those resources have plugged the gap in falling British government funding, adjusted for inflation, and low levels of investment from Britain’s private sector, figures from Digital Science show. British businesses contribute the equivalent of 1.06 percent of their country’s gross domestic product toward research and development, 80 percent less than what German companies contribute toward research and development in Germany.
The country has also attracted talent from across Europe. That is largely because of the relative ease of doing business in Britain, coupled with ecosystems developed around top universities, and that the bloc’s free movement of labor means no citizen of a European Union member country requires a visa to work in Britain.
Around 30,000 scientists and researchers from member states are employed by British universities — equivalent to 20 percent of their teaching and research staff — and a full 60 percent of research papers in Britain are written with partners in the European Union.
All of those factors are crucial to Mr. Durant and his fledgling business.
After getting his degree, he went on to obtain a Ph.D. In 2007, he received a Marie Curie Fellowship, which finances research across the bloc. Then, after the eruption in 2010 of an Icelandic volcano that disrupted global air travel, he started Satavia.
The company was founded in 2013 with initial funding of €500,000 from the European Space Agency — which is partly funded by the European Union and works closely with the bloc — along with a promise of up to €4 million more. Satavia, which helps aircraft detect threats like ice and volcanic ash, now employs four scientists in Cambridge.
“European funding has been critical to the success” of the company, Mr. Durant said.
But shortly after the Brexit vote, he was turned away from a research network involving European partners. He has since stopped writing research proposals because of the uncertainty. He is even considering moving Satavia’s headquarters from Britain. Source
This is tragic, really. I daily see colleagues who are genuinely fearful of the future of their enterprises - and this isn't in some backwater institution either. Real science will suffer in the UK as a result of Brexit and the ensuing uncertainty.
|
On October 19 2016 19:47 RoomOfMush wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2016 18:33 Madkipz wrote:On October 19 2016 16:14 BurningSera wrote: But with the price of what? I am sick of talking about brexit at this point but so long story short, the whole bloody thing is an emotional ride, there is nothing smart or strategic about it but showing the world what a fool of the nation is. Everything that has been going on since June is relied on 'we are special and you will treat us special' and then shit exploded when things don't go with people wishful thinking. Theresa May lost all credibility at this point and people are afraid for her to speak more.
I'll put it this way like a British (English) would say, EU might as well kick UK out because all UK has been doing to EU is about being obstructive in this and that anyway (eg like the trading deal with India). See? When things don't go well, turn around and blame on others, it is never my fault, full English, your commoner English of course. The bottomline is that like I said back in very beginning in this thread pre-brexit, the poor are going to be poorer, they are not going to get a paid raise (by sending the poles home) ever by moaning and complaining or blaming shit on foreigners and EU. And guess who are the selfish dimwits who voted out (I'm not saying all brexiter are dumb, but the people who believes the lies and go full bigot on street), most likely the poor/uneducated.
Ok you get a referendum result, people want to quit, ok fine, make a big analytical team with scientist finance analysts to lay out all the pros and cons and outlining all the concerns (this is also critical for planning your negotiation with EU), and then ask people again if they still want to out, and if they still do, bloody don't make racist comments and pissing off all business owners in one day and then use what you previously found out from the impact analysis to negotiate with EU. If you truly want to out, so be it, but this whole mess right now is a pure emotional ride and nothing else. Well, ruining average people lives that's what is happening now.
I am the generation where we get hit by the recession hardest, and we just came out from that since 2013 and now we go again. I'm the frustrated one here (and all the people who don't want out). The pro EU crowd were riding very high on the economic question, but the people who voted Brexit didn't give a damn because they were getting shafted either way. Not many of those that voted to leave gave a shit about what the globalists said, or what the finance "experts" said, or cared when the scientists began decrying the fact that they'll get less money. The rich were getting richer, and the poor were getting poorer as the current trends were going anyhow. At least with a Brexit the question of national sovereignty will be answered. But the rich will keep getting richer and the poor will still get poorer. The brexit vote did not change a thing about that. If your house is being invaded dont set it on fire. That doesnt make any sense. Increased centralization is one of the things that makes the rich richer. Brexit was a vote against centralization. 4 months since the vote and it seems like many are still trying to convince people to vote remain. Votes over guys.
|
On October 19 2016 16:14 BurningSera wrote: Theresa May lost all credibility at this point and people are afraid for her to speak more.
Whatever you say.
|
On October 19 2016 07:09 bardtown wrote: I intend to stop posting in this thread. There I was hoping you'll keep to that promise. But what do I expect from a person who says that a few more million violent obnoxious bullies acting out in UK is not a problem? Kill me.
|
On October 20 2016 02:44 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2016 07:09 bardtown wrote: I intend to stop posting in this thread. There I was hoping you'll keep to that promise. But what do I expect from a person who says that a few more million violent obnoxious bullies acting out in UK is not a problem? Kill me.
Your reading comprehension has let you down again. You're now virtue signalling against a caricature of your own position. Couldn't make it up.
|
On October 19 2016 07:09 bardtown wrote: Because the existence of thugs in the UK means that there are none in the EU? I cannot even remember the last time I posted in this thread and received a relevant response. We already have violent, obnoxious bullies in the UK - what harm can a few million more do?
Kill me. Pray tell, what is this supposed to mean then?
On October 19 2016 07:09 bardtown wrote: I intend to stop posting in this thread. Cough, cough.
|
That was a rethorical question of bardtown.
|
Well you'd hope it was a rhetorical overexageration. However bardtown likes to fight it up with everyone in this thread; a one man (or near to it) army best representing the illogical extreme brexiteer of today. There are no economic based arguments that are favourable (for the working class at least), and the anti globalisation/immigration is just backwards xenophobic in summary.
There are thugs in the EU, of course there are, but they are a lot less randomly angry than in the UK. This has just given every punter a liscence to attack anyone who is different for whatever reason. Asians, arabs, latinos, africans, eastern europeans, they seem to have not understood which countries actually form the EU.
I would've thought he would stop posting here after his first ban...
|
On October 19 2016 20:43 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2016 19:47 RoomOfMush wrote:On October 19 2016 18:33 Madkipz wrote:On October 19 2016 16:14 BurningSera wrote: But with the price of what? I am sick of talking about brexit at this point but so long story short, the whole bloody thing is an emotional ride, there is nothing smart or strategic about it but showing the world what a fool of the nation is. Everything that has been going on since June is relied on 'we are special and you will treat us special' and then shit exploded when things don't go with people wishful thinking. Theresa May lost all credibility at this point and people are afraid for her to speak more.
I'll put it this way like a British (English) would say, EU might as well kick UK out because all UK has been doing to EU is about being obstructive in this and that anyway (eg like the trading deal with India). See? When things don't go well, turn around and blame on others, it is never my fault, full English, your commoner English of course. The bottomline is that like I said back in very beginning in this thread pre-brexit, the poor are going to be poorer, they are not going to get a paid raise (by sending the poles home) ever by moaning and complaining or blaming shit on foreigners and EU. And guess who are the selfish dimwits who voted out (I'm not saying all brexiter are dumb, but the people who believes the lies and go full bigot on street), most likely the poor/uneducated.
Ok you get a referendum result, people want to quit, ok fine, make a big analytical team with scientist finance analysts to lay out all the pros and cons and outlining all the concerns (this is also critical for planning your negotiation with EU), and then ask people again if they still want to out, and if they still do, bloody don't make racist comments and pissing off all business owners in one day and then use what you previously found out from the impact analysis to negotiate with EU. If you truly want to out, so be it, but this whole mess right now is a pure emotional ride and nothing else. Well, ruining average people lives that's what is happening now.
I am the generation where we get hit by the recession hardest, and we just came out from that since 2013 and now we go again. I'm the frustrated one here (and all the people who don't want out). The pro EU crowd were riding very high on the economic question, but the people who voted Brexit didn't give a damn because they were getting shafted either way. Not many of those that voted to leave gave a shit about what the globalists said, or what the finance "experts" said, or cared when the scientists began decrying the fact that they'll get less money. The rich were getting richer, and the poor were getting poorer as the current trends were going anyhow. At least with a Brexit the question of national sovereignty will be answered. But the rich will keep getting richer and the poor will still get poorer. The brexit vote did not change a thing about that. If your house is being invaded dont set it on fire. That doesnt make any sense. Increased centralization is one of the things that makes the rich richer. Brexit was a vote against centralization. 4 months since the vote and it seems like many are still trying to convince people to vote remain. Votes over guys.
This would make perfect sense if we didn't keep voting in a Tory government whose main priority is to keep the rich rich and the poor poor. Its a good argument, but its not what made brexit happen. It happened because people were angry and lashing out at the system. It happened because the media narrative that somehow all of our problems are caused by immigrants was mixed with the equally obvious lie that Brexit would somehow fix that imaginary problem.
|
On October 23 2016 18:51 MyTHicaL wrote: Well you'd hope it was a rhetorical overexageration. However bardtown likes to fight it up with everyone in this thread; a one man (or near to it) army best representing the illogical extreme brexiteer of today. There are no economic based arguments that are favourable (for the working class at least), and the anti globalisation/immigration is just backwards xenophobic in summary.
There are thugs in the EU, of course there are, but they are a lot less randomly angry than in the UK. This has just given every punter a liscence to attack anyone who is different for whatever reason. Asians, arabs, latinos, africans, eastern europeans, they seem to have not understood which countries actually form the EU.
I would've thought he would stop posting here after his first ban...
The irony is that I'm probably the most moderate/centrist poster in this thread. The problem is that political discussion tends to descend into little more than a series of attempts to misrepresent the other person's positions in order to score points. Illogical? Far from it. Extreme? Moderate. Xenophobic? Not even a little bit. The economic arguments against globalisation are very well documented, and they are almost exclusively focused on protecting the working class. Are you even aware of what is going on with CETA? Why are socialists trying to block it? Because globalisation cripples the ability of nation states to protect their working classes. A nation state operating according to its own interests and not the diluted lowest-common-denominator interests of 28 diverse states has far more versatility in order to protect its own threatened industries, while at the same time not needing to shoulder the protectionism of the other 27. And when you see a critically flawed system, the economic solution is to be proactive and cut yourself loose at short term cost, not to hang on to it for some illusory short term security. Now evidently you weight the facts differently. You think the EU can recover from the migrant crisis, from it's inability to reform and listen to its people, from the economic trap that is the euro, etc. I disagree, and as far as I'm concerned I have a strong logical and empirical basis for doing so.
I'll say it again: I'm a centrist, but I recognise that if the globalist, moralising, anti-democratic left continues to get its way then Europe will fester, and increasingly turn towards extremes. As long as you refuse to engage with the legitimate concerns of moderates, those moderates will continue to turn to extremes. By calling me extreme and illogical you just undermine the discourse.
It is entirely pointless to look at a popular movement and say 'That's bad!' or dismiss its membership as bigots or imbeciles brainwashed by some malignant media. Popular movements never exist without context, and if you refuse to acknowledge the context you're not undermining the movement - you're fuelling it. Elite ideology and visions of impossible utopias will never hold out against the tide of popular opinion born of people accurately assessing their lived reality.
(I get periodically banned for my cancerous attitude. That's okay.)
p.s. I'm going to laugh if Raheem Kassam becomes UKIP leader and you all are forced to accept that nationalism in the UK has nothing to do with race and everything to do with culture. Note, for example, how British nationalists tend to be very fond of Sikhs and Sikhs voted for Brexit in the same proportion as the population as a whole.
|
On October 23 2016 20:25 bardtown wrote: The irony is that I'm probably the most moderate/centrist poster in this thread. Does anybody else feel reminded of sentences starting with "I am not a racist, but ..." ?
|
On October 23 2016 20:25 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2016 18:51 MyTHicaL wrote: Well you'd hope it was a rhetorical overexageration. However bardtown likes to fight it up with everyone in this thread; a one man (or near to it) army best representing the illogical extreme brexiteer of today. There are no economic based arguments that are favourable (for the working class at least), and the anti globalisation/immigration is just backwards xenophobic in summary.
There are thugs in the EU, of course there are, but they are a lot less randomly angry than in the UK. This has just given every punter a liscence to attack anyone who is different for whatever reason. Asians, arabs, latinos, africans, eastern europeans, they seem to have not understood which countries actually form the EU.
I would've thought he would stop posting here after his first ban...
The problem is that political discussion tends to descend into little more than a series of attempts to misrepresent the other person's positions in order to score points.
On October 23 2016 22:51 RoomOfMush wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2016 20:25 bardtown wrote: The irony is that I'm probably the most moderate/centrist poster in this thread. Does anybody else feel reminded of sentences starting with "I am not a racist, but ..." ?
Yawn. Find me a response to any of my points that doesn't fit this format
Honestly, so idiotic. You're absolutely fine with him calling me extreme and illogical, but have a problem with me saying that I am not. You're only betraying your own bias.
|
|
|
|