BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴
Comments
-
.TheBigBean said:
It's reducing its size (no UK contributions) and only funding research in the EU. As a result it is harder for UK-EU scientific research to take place. Science loses. The EU may be hoping that lots of scientists move to the EU, but they move in the other direction (as the UK will start funding science) or simply not collaborate.briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
Science is losing. That is the point of the fund. No one is winning.briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
It's been the case for a while. Sadly, it's another case of the nose needing reattaching.briantrumpet said:Seems there are consequences to not playing ball. And yes, it might be the EU playing hardball, but I'd not expect them to extol the virtues of pulling up the drawbridge.
Still, who needs lefty academics?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jul/05/eu-scraps-115-grants-uk-scientists-academics-brexit-rowBritish scientists and academic researchers have been dealt a blow after 115 grants from a flagship EU research programme were terminated because of the continuing Brexit row over Northern Ireland.
One academic said he was “relieved” to be exiting the country and feared the UK was going down a “dark path” like Germany in the 1930s.
One hundred and fifty grants were approved for British applicants after the then Brexit minister, David Frost, successfully negotiated associate membership of the £80bn Horizon Europe programme but most will now be cancelled.
Beneficiaries in the UK were told by the European Research Council (ERC) that unless associate membership had been approved by 29 June, the grants would not be available unless the researchers moved their work to a European institution.
Ratification of the membership has been in abeyance because the UK has not implemented the Brexit trading arrangements agreed under the Northern Ireland protocol.
With the deadline passed, it has emerged that just 18 of the 150 academics will take up the grants but must move to an EU institution to get the funds.
What are the EU losing? Seems to me that they are gaining from this; the loss is all the UK's - economically and skills-wise.
Can you not accept that the UK is in % terms the far bigger loser? The EU were never going to roll over (pointed out, ad nauseam) in the face of the UK asserting it could have all the benefits of EU membership without any of the responsibilities. Why should they fund a nation that is doing all it can to distance itself from the EU?
THis is merely the consequence of the chimera of 'sovereignty' being pursued with a religious zeal.
Is it? Isn't it just moving to the EU?
I'll not disagree that science loses, but, as I say, you can't expect the UK's isolationist stance to have no consequences. Blame it on Brexit, if you like: the EU didn't choose that course of action, that was the UK's choice, and the ramifications were either spelt out or implicit.0 -
Yes, the EU explicitly committed to working with the UK to let it join horizon. It was spelt out.briantrumpet said:.
TheBigBean said:
It's reducing its size (no UK contributions) and only funding research in the EU. As a result it is harder for UK-EU scientific research to take place. Science loses. The EU may be hoping that lots of scientists move to the EU, but they move in the other direction (as the UK will start funding science) or simply not collaborate.briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
Science is losing. That is the point of the fund. No one is winning.briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
It's been the case for a while. Sadly, it's another case of the nose needing reattaching.briantrumpet said:Seems there are consequences to not playing ball. And yes, it might be the EU playing hardball, but I'd not expect them to extol the virtues of pulling up the drawbridge.
Still, who needs lefty academics?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jul/05/eu-scraps-115-grants-uk-scientists-academics-brexit-rowBritish scientists and academic researchers have been dealt a blow after 115 grants from a flagship EU research programme were terminated because of the continuing Brexit row over Northern Ireland.
One academic said he was “relieved” to be exiting the country and feared the UK was going down a “dark path” like Germany in the 1930s.
One hundred and fifty grants were approved for British applicants after the then Brexit minister, David Frost, successfully negotiated associate membership of the £80bn Horizon Europe programme but most will now be cancelled.
Beneficiaries in the UK were told by the European Research Council (ERC) that unless associate membership had been approved by 29 June, the grants would not be available unless the researchers moved their work to a European institution.
Ratification of the membership has been in abeyance because the UK has not implemented the Brexit trading arrangements agreed under the Northern Ireland protocol.
With the deadline passed, it has emerged that just 18 of the 150 academics will take up the grants but must move to an EU institution to get the funds.
What are the EU losing? Seems to me that they are gaining from this; the loss is all the UK's - economically and skills-wise.
Can you not accept that the UK is in % terms the far bigger loser? The EU were never going to roll over (pointed out, ad nauseam) in the face of the UK asserting it could have all the benefits of EU membership without any of the responsibilities. Why should they fund a nation that is doing all it can to distance itself from the EU?
THis is merely the consequence of the chimera of 'sovereignty' being pursued with a religious zeal.
Is it? Isn't it just moving to the EU?
I'll not disagree that science loses, but, as I say, you can't expect the UK's isolationist stance to have no consequences. Blame it on Brexit, if you like: the EU didn't choose that course of action, that was the UK's choice, and the ramifications were either spelt out or implicit.0 -
TheBigBean said:
Yes, the EU explicitly committed to working with the UK to let it join horizon. It was spelt out.briantrumpet said:.
TheBigBean said:
It's reducing its size (no UK contributions) and only funding research in the EU. As a result it is harder for UK-EU scientific research to take place. Science loses. The EU may be hoping that lots of scientists move to the EU, but they move in the other direction (as the UK will start funding science) or simply not collaborate.briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
Science is losing. That is the point of the fund. No one is winning.briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
It's been the case for a while. Sadly, it's another case of the nose needing reattaching.briantrumpet said:Seems there are consequences to not playing ball. And yes, it might be the EU playing hardball, but I'd not expect them to extol the virtues of pulling up the drawbridge.
Still, who needs lefty academics?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jul/05/eu-scraps-115-grants-uk-scientists-academics-brexit-rowBritish scientists and academic researchers have been dealt a blow after 115 grants from a flagship EU research programme were terminated because of the continuing Brexit row over Northern Ireland.
One academic said he was “relieved” to be exiting the country and feared the UK was going down a “dark path” like Germany in the 1930s.
One hundred and fifty grants were approved for British applicants after the then Brexit minister, David Frost, successfully negotiated associate membership of the £80bn Horizon Europe programme but most will now be cancelled.
Beneficiaries in the UK were told by the European Research Council (ERC) that unless associate membership had been approved by 29 June, the grants would not be available unless the researchers moved their work to a European institution.
Ratification of the membership has been in abeyance because the UK has not implemented the Brexit trading arrangements agreed under the Northern Ireland protocol.
With the deadline passed, it has emerged that just 18 of the 150 academics will take up the grants but must move to an EU institution to get the funds.
What are the EU losing? Seems to me that they are gaining from this; the loss is all the UK's - economically and skills-wise.
Can you not accept that the UK is in % terms the far bigger loser? The EU were never going to roll over (pointed out, ad nauseam) in the face of the UK asserting it could have all the benefits of EU membership without any of the responsibilities. Why should they fund a nation that is doing all it can to distance itself from the EU?
THis is merely the consequence of the chimera of 'sovereignty' being pursued with a religious zeal.
Is it? Isn't it just moving to the EU?
I'll not disagree that science loses, but, as I say, you can't expect the UK's isolationist stance to have no consequences. Blame it on Brexit, if you like: the EU didn't choose that course of action, that was the UK's choice, and the ramifications were either spelt out or implicit.
What, like the NI Protocol was spelt out?0 -
Yes, like that. It appears it is not only the EU that can bring the things together to damage science.briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
Yes, the EU explicitly committed to working with the UK to let it join horizon. It was spelt out.briantrumpet said:.
TheBigBean said:
It's reducing its size (no UK contributions) and only funding research in the EU. As a result it is harder for UK-EU scientific research to take place. Science loses. The EU may be hoping that lots of scientists move to the EU, but they move in the other direction (as the UK will start funding science) or simply not collaborate.briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
Science is losing. That is the point of the fund. No one is winning.briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
It's been the case for a while. Sadly, it's another case of the nose needing reattaching.briantrumpet said:Seems there are consequences to not playing ball. And yes, it might be the EU playing hardball, but I'd not expect them to extol the virtues of pulling up the drawbridge.
Still, who needs lefty academics?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jul/05/eu-scraps-115-grants-uk-scientists-academics-brexit-rowBritish scientists and academic researchers have been dealt a blow after 115 grants from a flagship EU research programme were terminated because of the continuing Brexit row over Northern Ireland.
One academic said he was “relieved” to be exiting the country and feared the UK was going down a “dark path” like Germany in the 1930s.
One hundred and fifty grants were approved for British applicants after the then Brexit minister, David Frost, successfully negotiated associate membership of the £80bn Horizon Europe programme but most will now be cancelled.
Beneficiaries in the UK were told by the European Research Council (ERC) that unless associate membership had been approved by 29 June, the grants would not be available unless the researchers moved their work to a European institution.
Ratification of the membership has been in abeyance because the UK has not implemented the Brexit trading arrangements agreed under the Northern Ireland protocol.
With the deadline passed, it has emerged that just 18 of the 150 academics will take up the grants but must move to an EU institution to get the funds.
What are the EU losing? Seems to me that they are gaining from this; the loss is all the UK's - economically and skills-wise.
Can you not accept that the UK is in % terms the far bigger loser? The EU were never going to roll over (pointed out, ad nauseam) in the face of the UK asserting it could have all the benefits of EU membership without any of the responsibilities. Why should they fund a nation that is doing all it can to distance itself from the EU?
THis is merely the consequence of the chimera of 'sovereignty' being pursued with a religious zeal.
Is it? Isn't it just moving to the EU?
I'll not disagree that science loses, but, as I say, you can't expect the UK's isolationist stance to have no consequences. Blame it on Brexit, if you like: the EU didn't choose that course of action, that was the UK's choice, and the ramifications were either spelt out or implicit.
What, like the NI Protocol was spelt out?0 -
Nope, the 'too early as the EU is still in a huff' phase.briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
Not often that accusation is levelled at merick_chasey said:He can steer clear and be credible?
You lack optimism. Once it stops being a battle about making brexit a success/failure, which would help with different leadership, I think there is a middle ground to be made. TBH you wouldn't need a big deal to be an improvement on the current situation.Stevo_666 said:
True. FS is probably the most important area and my point about EU unwillingness in this area stands:rick_chasey said:
There are a lot of services. Doesn't necessarily need to cover every single one.Stevo_666 said:
Fair point, and not one that necessarily entails signing up to various EU forms of control. However I expect the EU will not be as keen as we are relatively stronger on that front compared to them: presumably if it were in their interests they might have raised it during the negotiations.rick_chasey said:
Could start with an FTA that includes services?Stevo_666 said:
So let's hear your proposal for unravelling the bits that you think are bad/dislike and then let's see what that actually entails and whether it is feasible.briantrumpet said:rick_chasey said:Am getting pretty fed up for the Remainer apologists for Starmer's position on the CU and SM.
Basically giving him a pass because he's not BoJo.
F*ck no. It's working against the national interest. One party needs to stand up for it ffs. This narrative that you need to go along with populist nonsense to get elected just isn't right.
Making promises like that is just a route to a kicking - if you promise something that is demonstrably bad for the nation, eventually if you do make it to PM you'll either cost the nation or go back on your promise.
Why?
Just be honest. "Brexit is not something any of us would like to revisit. We recognise the vote, and recognise the short comings of the current situation. We do not want to paralyse government and parliaments across the UK by making wholesale change to our relationship with Europe, but we recognise there are ways to improve it that respect the result"
It's not that hard. There's a f*cktonne of stuff that needs fixing that they can focus on.
F*cking useless labour leadership. Basic. The guy is a classic lawyer - lacks any f*cking strategy and big picture thinking, and is stuck in the weeds.
Hmm, part of me agrees, but then we might be in the territory of doing the right thing but not getting anywhere near power to be able to put it into action (see the rabid lefties ad nauseam who hanker for a pure socialist stance that the electorate will never choose).
Stevo seems to think that because unravelling the worst aspects of Brexit is going to take a long time, it's not worth doing at all, but if we are going to unravel it, the first step is to get rid of this bunch of incompetents, and then demonstrate that closer working with the EU brings tangible economic benefits. Then, and only then, might the debate change far enough to be able to make bolder suggestions.
https://instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/future-relationship-financial-services#:~:text=However%2C%20the%20EU%20was%20unwilling,through%20mutual%20unilateral%20equivalence%20decisions.
Possibly something for the future when they have come to terms with our departure and are being a bit more cooperative.
I'd be all for it but there is a time and a place for it which probably is further down the line (for the reason I gave above) in order to give it the best chance of success.
So are we still in the 'Too early to tell' phase?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
They haven't done very well at all so far, judging by the very limited number of jobs that have shifted. Especially compared to some of the the rather apocalyptic forecasts made before we left.surrey_commuter said:
Where your theory falls down is that all other trade deals have signalled convergence rather than divergence and it still has not been possible.Jezyboy said:
First time for everything?surrey_commuter said:
in the history of FTA's none has ever included services. You have fallen for another Brexshit lie.rick_chasey said:
Could start with an FTA that includes services?Stevo_666 said:
So let's hear your proposal for unravelling the bits that you think are bad/dislike and then let's see what that actually entails and whether it is feasible.briantrumpet said:rick_chasey said:Am getting pretty fed up for the Remainer apologists for Starmer's position on the CU and SM.
Basically giving him a pass because he's not BoJo.
F*ck no. It's working against the national interest. One party needs to stand up for it ffs. This narrative that you need to go along with populist nonsense to get elected just isn't right.
Making promises like that is just a route to a kicking - if you promise something that is demonstrably bad for the nation, eventually if you do make it to PM you'll either cost the nation or go back on your promise.
Why?
Just be honest. "Brexit is not something any of us would like to revisit. We recognise the vote, and recognise the short comings of the current situation. We do not want to paralyse government and parliaments across the UK by making wholesale change to our relationship with Europe, but we recognise there are ways to improve it that respect the result"
It's not that hard. There's a f*cktonne of stuff that needs fixing that they can focus on.
F*cking useless labour leadership. Basic. The guy is a classic lawyer - lacks any f*cking strategy and big picture thinking, and is stuck in the weeds.
Hmm, part of me agrees, but then we might be in the territory of doing the right thing but not getting anywhere near power to be able to put it into action (see the rabid lefties ad nauseam who hanker for a pure socialist stance that the electorate will never choose).
Stevo seems to think that because unravelling the worst aspects of Brexit is going to take a long time, it's not worth doing at all, but if we are going to unravel it, the first step is to get rid of this bunch of incompetents, and then demonstrate that closer working with the EU brings tangible economic benefits. Then, and only then, might the debate change far enough to be able to make bolder suggestions.
Few countries have done anything like brexit, so I don't think it would be surprising if the eventual fall out contained a number of "firsts".
Ignoring the rights and wrongs the EU would be mad not to try and steal the jewel in our crown"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Good point. In the end most non-regulated services have been pretty much unaffected, as you would expect.TheBigBean said:
The only services that require FTAs are ones that are regulated, and not that many things are regulated. For example, if you require a website to be designed, the purpose who does it can sit in any country.surrey_commuter said:
in the history of FTA's none has ever included services. You have fallen for another Brexshit lie.rick_chasey said:
Could start with an FTA that includes services?Stevo_666 said:
So let's hear your proposal for unravelling the bits that you think are bad/dislike and then let's see what that actually entails and whether it is feasible.briantrumpet said:rick_chasey said:Am getting pretty fed up for the Remainer apologists for Starmer's position on the CU and SM.
Basically giving him a pass because he's not BoJo.
F*ck no. It's working against the national interest. One party needs to stand up for it ffs. This narrative that you need to go along with populist nonsense to get elected just isn't right.
Making promises like that is just a route to a kicking - if you promise something that is demonstrably bad for the nation, eventually if you do make it to PM you'll either cost the nation or go back on your promise.
Why?
Just be honest. "Brexit is not something any of us would like to revisit. We recognise the vote, and recognise the short comings of the current situation. We do not want to paralyse government and parliaments across the UK by making wholesale change to our relationship with Europe, but we recognise there are ways to improve it that respect the result"
It's not that hard. There's a f*cktonne of stuff that needs fixing that they can focus on.
F*cking useless labour leadership. Basic. The guy is a classic lawyer - lacks any f*cking strategy and big picture thinking, and is stuck in the weeds.
Hmm, part of me agrees, but then we might be in the territory of doing the right thing but not getting anywhere near power to be able to put it into action (see the rabid lefties ad nauseam who hanker for a pure socialist stance that the electorate will never choose).
Stevo seems to think that because unravelling the worst aspects of Brexit is going to take a long time, it's not worth doing at all, but if we are going to unravel it, the first step is to get rid of this bunch of incompetents, and then demonstrate that closer working with the EU brings tangible economic benefits. Then, and only then, might the debate change far enough to be able to make bolder suggestions."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Stevo_666 said:
They haven't done very well at all so far, judging by the very limited number of jobs that have shifted. Especially compared to some of the the rather apocalyptic forecasts made before we left.surrey_commuter said:
Where your theory falls down is that all other trade deals have signalled convergence rather than divergence and it still has not been possible.Jezyboy said:
First time for everything?surrey_commuter said:
in the history of FTA's none has ever included services. You have fallen for another Brexshit lie.rick_chasey said:
Could start with an FTA that includes services?Stevo_666 said:
So let's hear your proposal for unravelling the bits that you think are bad/dislike and then let's see what that actually entails and whether it is feasible.briantrumpet said:rick_chasey said:Am getting pretty fed up for the Remainer apologists for Starmer's position on the CU and SM.
Basically giving him a pass because he's not BoJo.
F*ck no. It's working against the national interest. One party needs to stand up for it ffs. This narrative that you need to go along with populist nonsense to get elected just isn't right.
Making promises like that is just a route to a kicking - if you promise something that is demonstrably bad for the nation, eventually if you do make it to PM you'll either cost the nation or go back on your promise.
Why?
Just be honest. "Brexit is not something any of us would like to revisit. We recognise the vote, and recognise the short comings of the current situation. We do not want to paralyse government and parliaments across the UK by making wholesale change to our relationship with Europe, but we recognise there are ways to improve it that respect the result"
It's not that hard. There's a f*cktonne of stuff that needs fixing that they can focus on.
F*cking useless labour leadership. Basic. The guy is a classic lawyer - lacks any f*cking strategy and big picture thinking, and is stuck in the weeds.
Hmm, part of me agrees, but then we might be in the territory of doing the right thing but not getting anywhere near power to be able to put it into action (see the rabid lefties ad nauseam who hanker for a pure socialist stance that the electorate will never choose).
Stevo seems to think that because unravelling the worst aspects of Brexit is going to take a long time, it's not worth doing at all, but if we are going to unravel it, the first step is to get rid of this bunch of incompetents, and then demonstrate that closer working with the EU brings tangible economic benefits. Then, and only then, might the debate change far enough to be able to make bolder suggestions.
Few countries have done anything like brexit, so I don't think it would be surprising if the eventual fall out contained a number of "firsts".
Ignoring the rights and wrongs the EU would be mad not to try and steal the jewel in our crown
If they are any sense they would see it as a decades long policy objectiveStevo_666 said:
They haven't done very well at all so far, judging by the very limited number of jobs that have shifted. Especially compared to some of the the rather apocalyptic forecasts made before we left.surrey_commuter said:
Where your theory falls down is that all other trade deals have signalled convergence rather than divergence and it still has not been possible.Jezyboy said:
First time for everything?surrey_commuter said:
in the history of FTA's none has ever included services. You have fallen for another Brexshit lie.rick_chasey said:
Could start with an FTA that includes services?Stevo_666 said:
So let's hear your proposal for unravelling the bits that you think are bad/dislike and then let's see what that actually entails and whether it is feasible.briantrumpet said:rick_chasey said:Am getting pretty fed up for the Remainer apologists for Starmer's position on the CU and SM.
Basically giving him a pass because he's not BoJo.
F*ck no. It's working against the national interest. One party needs to stand up for it ffs. This narrative that you need to go along with populist nonsense to get elected just isn't right.
Making promises like that is just a route to a kicking - if you promise something that is demonstrably bad for the nation, eventually if you do make it to PM you'll either cost the nation or go back on your promise.
Why?
Just be honest. "Brexit is not something any of us would like to revisit. We recognise the vote, and recognise the short comings of the current situation. We do not want to paralyse government and parliaments across the UK by making wholesale change to our relationship with Europe, but we recognise there are ways to improve it that respect the result"
It's not that hard. There's a f*cktonne of stuff that needs fixing that they can focus on.
F*cking useless labour leadership. Basic. The guy is a classic lawyer - lacks any f*cking strategy and big picture thinking, and is stuck in the weeds.
Hmm, part of me agrees, but then we might be in the territory of doing the right thing but not getting anywhere near power to be able to put it into action (see the rabid lefties ad nauseam who hanker for a pure socialist stance that the electorate will never choose).
Stevo seems to think that because unravelling the worst aspects of Brexit is going to take a long time, it's not worth doing at all, but if we are going to unravel it, the first step is to get rid of this bunch of incompetents, and then demonstrate that closer working with the EU brings tangible economic benefits. Then, and only then, might the debate change far enough to be able to make bolder suggestions.
Few countries have done anything like brexit, so I don't think it would be surprising if the eventual fall out contained a number of "firsts".
Ignoring the rights and wrongs the EU would be mad not to try and steal the jewel in our crown0 -
Ever the optimist.TheBigBean said:
It's reducing its size (no UK contributions) and only funding research in the EU. As a result it is harder for UK-EU scientific research to take place. Science loses. The EU may be hoping that lots of scientists move to the EU, but they move in the other direction (as the UK will start funding science) or simply not collaborate.briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
Science is losing. That is the point of the fund. No one is winning.briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
It's been the case for a while. Sadly, it's another case of the nose needing reattaching.briantrumpet said:Seems there are consequences to not playing ball. And yes, it might be the EU playing hardball, but I'd not expect them to extol the virtues of pulling up the drawbridge.
Still, who needs lefty academics?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jul/05/eu-scraps-115-grants-uk-scientists-academics-brexit-rowBritish scientists and academic researchers have been dealt a blow after 115 grants from a flagship EU research programme were terminated because of the continuing Brexit row over Northern Ireland.
One academic said he was “relieved” to be exiting the country and feared the UK was going down a “dark path” like Germany in the 1930s.
One hundred and fifty grants were approved for British applicants after the then Brexit minister, David Frost, successfully negotiated associate membership of the £80bn Horizon Europe programme but most will now be cancelled.
Beneficiaries in the UK were told by the European Research Council (ERC) that unless associate membership had been approved by 29 June, the grants would not be available unless the researchers moved their work to a European institution.
Ratification of the membership has been in abeyance because the UK has not implemented the Brexit trading arrangements agreed under the Northern Ireland protocol.
With the deadline passed, it has emerged that just 18 of the 150 academics will take up the grants but must move to an EU institution to get the funds.
What are the EU losing? Seems to me that they are gaining from this; the loss is all the UK's - economically and skills-wise.
Can you not accept that the UK is in % terms the far bigger loser? The EU were never going to roll over (pointed out, ad nauseam) in the face of the UK asserting it could have all the benefits of EU membership without any of the responsibilities. Why should they fund a nation that is doing all it can to distance itself from the EU?
THis is merely the consequence of the chimera of 'sovereignty' being pursued with a religious zeal.
Is it? Isn't it just moving to the EU?1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
They don't have a lot of choice given the failure in the short term. Their bigger challenge is that there needs to be one EU challenger to London as a Global financial centre and national priorities will stop them doing that as the Paris, Frankfurt, Amsterdam etc are busy competing with each other for the scraps that fall from the London table.surrey_commuter said:Stevo_666 said:
They haven't done very well at all so far, judging by the very limited number of jobs that have shifted. Especially compared to some of the the rather apocalyptic forecasts made before we left.surrey_commuter said:
Where your theory falls down is that all other trade deals have signalled convergence rather than divergence and it still has not been possible.Jezyboy said:
First time for everything?surrey_commuter said:
in the history of FTA's none has ever included services. You have fallen for another Brexshit lie.rick_chasey said:
Could start with an FTA that includes services?Stevo_666 said:
So let's hear your proposal for unravelling the bits that you think are bad/dislike and then let's see what that actually entails and whether it is feasible.briantrumpet said:rick_chasey said:Am getting pretty fed up for the Remainer apologists for Starmer's position on the CU and SM.
Basically giving him a pass because he's not BoJo.
F*ck no. It's working against the national interest. One party needs to stand up for it ffs. This narrative that you need to go along with populist nonsense to get elected just isn't right.
Making promises like that is just a route to a kicking - if you promise something that is demonstrably bad for the nation, eventually if you do make it to PM you'll either cost the nation or go back on your promise.
Why?
Just be honest. "Brexit is not something any of us would like to revisit. We recognise the vote, and recognise the short comings of the current situation. We do not want to paralyse government and parliaments across the UK by making wholesale change to our relationship with Europe, but we recognise there are ways to improve it that respect the result"
It's not that hard. There's a f*cktonne of stuff that needs fixing that they can focus on.
F*cking useless labour leadership. Basic. The guy is a classic lawyer - lacks any f*cking strategy and big picture thinking, and is stuck in the weeds.
Hmm, part of me agrees, but then we might be in the territory of doing the right thing but not getting anywhere near power to be able to put it into action (see the rabid lefties ad nauseam who hanker for a pure socialist stance that the electorate will never choose).
Stevo seems to think that because unravelling the worst aspects of Brexit is going to take a long time, it's not worth doing at all, but if we are going to unravel it, the first step is to get rid of this bunch of incompetents, and then demonstrate that closer working with the EU brings tangible economic benefits. Then, and only then, might the debate change far enough to be able to make bolder suggestions.
Few countries have done anything like brexit, so I don't think it would be surprising if the eventual fall out contained a number of "firsts".
Ignoring the rights and wrongs the EU would be mad not to try and steal the jewel in our crown
If they are any sense they would see it as a decades long policy objectiveStevo_666 said:
They haven't done very well at all so far, judging by the very limited number of jobs that have shifted. Especially compared to some of the the rather apocalyptic forecasts made before we left.surrey_commuter said:
Where your theory falls down is that all other trade deals have signalled convergence rather than divergence and it still has not been possible.Jezyboy said:
First time for everything?surrey_commuter said:
in the history of FTA's none has ever included services. You have fallen for another Brexshit lie.rick_chasey said:
Could start with an FTA that includes services?Stevo_666 said:
So let's hear your proposal for unravelling the bits that you think are bad/dislike and then let's see what that actually entails and whether it is feasible.briantrumpet said:rick_chasey said:Am getting pretty fed up for the Remainer apologists for Starmer's position on the CU and SM.
Basically giving him a pass because he's not BoJo.
F*ck no. It's working against the national interest. One party needs to stand up for it ffs. This narrative that you need to go along with populist nonsense to get elected just isn't right.
Making promises like that is just a route to a kicking - if you promise something that is demonstrably bad for the nation, eventually if you do make it to PM you'll either cost the nation or go back on your promise.
Why?
Just be honest. "Brexit is not something any of us would like to revisit. We recognise the vote, and recognise the short comings of the current situation. We do not want to paralyse government and parliaments across the UK by making wholesale change to our relationship with Europe, but we recognise there are ways to improve it that respect the result"
It's not that hard. There's a f*cktonne of stuff that needs fixing that they can focus on.
F*cking useless labour leadership. Basic. The guy is a classic lawyer - lacks any f*cking strategy and big picture thinking, and is stuck in the weeds.
Hmm, part of me agrees, but then we might be in the territory of doing the right thing but not getting anywhere near power to be able to put it into action (see the rabid lefties ad nauseam who hanker for a pure socialist stance that the electorate will never choose).
Stevo seems to think that because unravelling the worst aspects of Brexit is going to take a long time, it's not worth doing at all, but if we are going to unravel it, the first step is to get rid of this bunch of incompetents, and then demonstrate that closer working with the EU brings tangible economic benefits. Then, and only then, might the debate change far enough to be able to make bolder suggestions.
Few countries have done anything like brexit, so I don't think it would be surprising if the eventual fall out contained a number of "firsts".
Ignoring the rights and wrongs the EU would be mad not to try and steal the jewel in our crown"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
It's a dirty job, but somebody in Cake Stop has to do it.rjsterry said:
Ever the optimist.TheBigBean said:
It's reducing its size (no UK contributions) and only funding research in the EU. As a result it is harder for UK-EU scientific research to take place. Science loses. The EU may be hoping that lots of scientists move to the EU, but they move in the other direction (as the UK will start funding science) or simply not collaborate.briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
Science is losing. That is the point of the fund. No one is winning.briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
It's been the case for a while. Sadly, it's another case of the nose needing reattaching.briantrumpet said:Seems there are consequences to not playing ball. And yes, it might be the EU playing hardball, but I'd not expect them to extol the virtues of pulling up the drawbridge.
Still, who needs lefty academics?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jul/05/eu-scraps-115-grants-uk-scientists-academics-brexit-rowBritish scientists and academic researchers have been dealt a blow after 115 grants from a flagship EU research programme were terminated because of the continuing Brexit row over Northern Ireland.
One academic said he was “relieved” to be exiting the country and feared the UK was going down a “dark path” like Germany in the 1930s.
One hundred and fifty grants were approved for British applicants after the then Brexit minister, David Frost, successfully negotiated associate membership of the £80bn Horizon Europe programme but most will now be cancelled.
Beneficiaries in the UK were told by the European Research Council (ERC) that unless associate membership had been approved by 29 June, the grants would not be available unless the researchers moved their work to a European institution.
Ratification of the membership has been in abeyance because the UK has not implemented the Brexit trading arrangements agreed under the Northern Ireland protocol.
With the deadline passed, it has emerged that just 18 of the 150 academics will take up the grants but must move to an EU institution to get the funds.
What are the EU losing? Seems to me that they are gaining from this; the loss is all the UK's - economically and skills-wise.
Can you not accept that the UK is in % terms the far bigger loser? The EU were never going to roll over (pointed out, ad nauseam) in the face of the UK asserting it could have all the benefits of EU membership without any of the responsibilities. Why should they fund a nation that is doing all it can to distance itself from the EU?
THis is merely the consequence of the chimera of 'sovereignty' being pursued with a religious zeal.
Is it? Isn't it just moving to the EU?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
UK academic research started getting cancelled almost as soon as we left as the funding was cut. EU universities were then suing UK institutions for crashing joint research projects part way through. This was all pre-covid. I mean maybe this will all turn around but it seems unlikely given we don't actually have a Chancellor at the moment and they've already had several years to put something in place.Stevo_666 said:
It's a dirty job, but somebody in Cake Stop has to do it.rjsterry said:
Ever the optimist.TheBigBean said:
It's reducing its size (no UK contributions) and only funding research in the EU. As a result it is harder for UK-EU scientific research to take place. Science loses. The EU may be hoping that lots of scientists move to the EU, but they move in the other direction (as the UK will start funding science) or simply not collaborate.briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
Science is losing. That is the point of the fund. No one is winning.briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
It's been the case for a while. Sadly, it's another case of the nose needing reattaching.briantrumpet said:Seems there are consequences to not playing ball. And yes, it might be the EU playing hardball, but I'd not expect them to extol the virtues of pulling up the drawbridge.
Still, who needs lefty academics?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jul/05/eu-scraps-115-grants-uk-scientists-academics-brexit-rowBritish scientists and academic researchers have been dealt a blow after 115 grants from a flagship EU research programme were terminated because of the continuing Brexit row over Northern Ireland.
One academic said he was “relieved” to be exiting the country and feared the UK was going down a “dark path” like Germany in the 1930s.
One hundred and fifty grants were approved for British applicants after the then Brexit minister, David Frost, successfully negotiated associate membership of the £80bn Horizon Europe programme but most will now be cancelled.
Beneficiaries in the UK were told by the European Research Council (ERC) that unless associate membership had been approved by 29 June, the grants would not be available unless the researchers moved their work to a European institution.
Ratification of the membership has been in abeyance because the UK has not implemented the Brexit trading arrangements agreed under the Northern Ireland protocol.
With the deadline passed, it has emerged that just 18 of the 150 academics will take up the grants but must move to an EU institution to get the funds.
What are the EU losing? Seems to me that they are gaining from this; the loss is all the UK's - economically and skills-wise.
Can you not accept that the UK is in % terms the far bigger loser? The EU were never going to roll over (pointed out, ad nauseam) in the face of the UK asserting it could have all the benefits of EU membership without any of the responsibilities. Why should they fund a nation that is doing all it can to distance itself from the EU?
THis is merely the consequence of the chimera of 'sovereignty' being pursued with a religious zeal.
Is it? Isn't it just moving to the EU?1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
I'm sure we are capable of funding academic research ourselves - and making the decision on who and what to fund - rather than handing the money over to the EU and allowing them to decide who is worthy of funding.rjsterry said:
UK academic research started getting cancelled almost as soon as we left as the funding was cut. EU universities were then suing UK institutions for crashing joint research projects part way through. This was all pre-covid. I mean maybe this will all turn around but it seems unlikely given we don't actually have a Chancellor at the moment and they've already had several years to put something in place.Stevo_666 said:
It's a dirty job, but somebody in Cake Stop has to do it.rjsterry said:
Ever the optimist.TheBigBean said:
It's reducing its size (no UK contributions) and only funding research in the EU. As a result it is harder for UK-EU scientific research to take place. Science loses. The EU may be hoping that lots of scientists move to the EU, but they move in the other direction (as the UK will start funding science) or simply not collaborate.briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
Science is losing. That is the point of the fund. No one is winning.briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
It's been the case for a while. Sadly, it's another case of the nose needing reattaching.briantrumpet said:Seems there are consequences to not playing ball. And yes, it might be the EU playing hardball, but I'd not expect them to extol the virtues of pulling up the drawbridge.
Still, who needs lefty academics?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jul/05/eu-scraps-115-grants-uk-scientists-academics-brexit-rowBritish scientists and academic researchers have been dealt a blow after 115 grants from a flagship EU research programme were terminated because of the continuing Brexit row over Northern Ireland.
One academic said he was “relieved” to be exiting the country and feared the UK was going down a “dark path” like Germany in the 1930s.
One hundred and fifty grants were approved for British applicants after the then Brexit minister, David Frost, successfully negotiated associate membership of the £80bn Horizon Europe programme but most will now be cancelled.
Beneficiaries in the UK were told by the European Research Council (ERC) that unless associate membership had been approved by 29 June, the grants would not be available unless the researchers moved their work to a European institution.
Ratification of the membership has been in abeyance because the UK has not implemented the Brexit trading arrangements agreed under the Northern Ireland protocol.
With the deadline passed, it has emerged that just 18 of the 150 academics will take up the grants but must move to an EU institution to get the funds.
What are the EU losing? Seems to me that they are gaining from this; the loss is all the UK's - economically and skills-wise.
Can you not accept that the UK is in % terms the far bigger loser? The EU were never going to roll over (pointed out, ad nauseam) in the face of the UK asserting it could have all the benefits of EU membership without any of the responsibilities. Why should they fund a nation that is doing all it can to distance itself from the EU?
THis is merely the consequence of the chimera of 'sovereignty' being pursued with a religious zeal.
Is it? Isn't it just moving to the EU?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Where the money is coming from is irrelevant. There's just less of it.Stevo_666 said:
I'm sure we are capable of funding academic research ourselves - and making the decision on who and what to fund - rather than handing the money over to the EU and allowing them to decide who is worthy of funding.rjsterry said:
UK academic research started getting cancelled almost as soon as we left as the funding was cut. EU universities were then suing UK institutions for crashing joint research projects part way through. This was all pre-covid. I mean maybe this will all turn around but it seems unlikely given we don't actually have a Chancellor at the moment and they've already had several years to put something in place.Stevo_666 said:
It's a dirty job, but somebody in Cake Stop has to do it.rjsterry said:
Ever the optimist.TheBigBean said:
It's reducing its size (no UK contributions) and only funding research in the EU. As a result it is harder for UK-EU scientific research to take place. Science loses. The EU may be hoping that lots of scientists move to the EU, but they move in the other direction (as the UK will start funding science) or simply not collaborate.briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
Science is losing. That is the point of the fund. No one is winning.briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
It's been the case for a while. Sadly, it's another case of the nose needing reattaching.briantrumpet said:Seems there are consequences to not playing ball. And yes, it might be the EU playing hardball, but I'd not expect them to extol the virtues of pulling up the drawbridge.
Still, who needs lefty academics?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jul/05/eu-scraps-115-grants-uk-scientists-academics-brexit-rowBritish scientists and academic researchers have been dealt a blow after 115 grants from a flagship EU research programme were terminated because of the continuing Brexit row over Northern Ireland.
One academic said he was “relieved” to be exiting the country and feared the UK was going down a “dark path” like Germany in the 1930s.
One hundred and fifty grants were approved for British applicants after the then Brexit minister, David Frost, successfully negotiated associate membership of the £80bn Horizon Europe programme but most will now be cancelled.
Beneficiaries in the UK were told by the European Research Council (ERC) that unless associate membership had been approved by 29 June, the grants would not be available unless the researchers moved their work to a European institution.
Ratification of the membership has been in abeyance because the UK has not implemented the Brexit trading arrangements agreed under the Northern Ireland protocol.
With the deadline passed, it has emerged that just 18 of the 150 academics will take up the grants but must move to an EU institution to get the funds.
What are the EU losing? Seems to me that they are gaining from this; the loss is all the UK's - economically and skills-wise.
Can you not accept that the UK is in % terms the far bigger loser? The EU were never going to roll over (pointed out, ad nauseam) in the face of the UK asserting it could have all the benefits of EU membership without any of the responsibilities. Why should they fund a nation that is doing all it can to distance itself from the EU?
THis is merely the consequence of the chimera of 'sovereignty' being pursued with a religious zeal.
Is it? Isn't it just moving to the EU?1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
No payments to Horizon though, so it would be a straight swap. Cost is the same, but no cross border collaboration.rjsterry said:
Where the money is coming from is irrelevant. There's just less of it.Stevo_666 said:
I'm sure we are capable of funding academic research ourselves - and making the decision on who and what to fund - rather than handing the money over to the EU and allowing them to decide who is worthy of funding.rjsterry said:
UK academic research started getting cancelled almost as soon as we left as the funding was cut. EU universities were then suing UK institutions for crashing joint research projects part way through. This was all pre-covid. I mean maybe this will all turn around but it seems unlikely given we don't actually have a Chancellor at the moment and they've already had several years to put something in place.Stevo_666 said:
It's a dirty job, but somebody in Cake Stop has to do it.rjsterry said:
Ever the optimist.TheBigBean said:
It's reducing its size (no UK contributions) and only funding research in the EU. As a result it is harder for UK-EU scientific research to take place. Science loses. The EU may be hoping that lots of scientists move to the EU, but they move in the other direction (as the UK will start funding science) or simply not collaborate.briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
Science is losing. That is the point of the fund. No one is winning.briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
It's been the case for a while. Sadly, it's another case of the nose needing reattaching.briantrumpet said:Seems there are consequences to not playing ball. And yes, it might be the EU playing hardball, but I'd not expect them to extol the virtues of pulling up the drawbridge.
Still, who needs lefty academics?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jul/05/eu-scraps-115-grants-uk-scientists-academics-brexit-rowBritish scientists and academic researchers have been dealt a blow after 115 grants from a flagship EU research programme were terminated because of the continuing Brexit row over Northern Ireland.
One academic said he was “relieved” to be exiting the country and feared the UK was going down a “dark path” like Germany in the 1930s.
One hundred and fifty grants were approved for British applicants after the then Brexit minister, David Frost, successfully negotiated associate membership of the £80bn Horizon Europe programme but most will now be cancelled.
Beneficiaries in the UK were told by the European Research Council (ERC) that unless associate membership had been approved by 29 June, the grants would not be available unless the researchers moved their work to a European institution.
Ratification of the membership has been in abeyance because the UK has not implemented the Brexit trading arrangements agreed under the Northern Ireland protocol.
With the deadline passed, it has emerged that just 18 of the 150 academics will take up the grants but must move to an EU institution to get the funds.
What are the EU losing? Seems to me that they are gaining from this; the loss is all the UK's - economically and skills-wise.
Can you not accept that the UK is in % terms the far bigger loser? The EU were never going to roll over (pointed out, ad nauseam) in the face of the UK asserting it could have all the benefits of EU membership without any of the responsibilities. Why should they fund a nation that is doing all it can to distance itself from the EU?
THis is merely the consequence of the chimera of 'sovereignty' being pursued with a religious zeal.
Is it? Isn't it just moving to the EU?0 -
On that, yes. Stopping international collaboration is a loss for everyone. Somewhat unrealistic to expect one party to carry on funding unilaterally, though.TheBigBean said:
No payments to Horizon though, so it would be a straight swap. Cost is the same, but no cross border collaboration.rjsterry said:
Where the money is coming from is irrelevant. There's just less of it.Stevo_666 said:
I'm sure we are capable of funding academic research ourselves - and making the decision on who and what to fund - rather than handing the money over to the EU and allowing them to decide who is worthy of funding.rjsterry said:
UK academic research started getting cancelled almost as soon as we left as the funding was cut. EU universities were then suing UK institutions for crashing joint research projects part way through. This was all pre-covid. I mean maybe this will all turn around but it seems unlikely given we don't actually have a Chancellor at the moment and they've already had several years to put something in place.Stevo_666 said:
It's a dirty job, but somebody in Cake Stop has to do it.rjsterry said:
Ever the optimist.TheBigBean said:
It's reducing its size (no UK contributions) and only funding research in the EU. As a result it is harder for UK-EU scientific research to take place. Science loses. The EU may be hoping that lots of scientists move to the EU, but they move in the other direction (as the UK will start funding science) or simply not collaborate.briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
Science is losing. That is the point of the fund. No one is winning.briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
It's been the case for a while. Sadly, it's another case of the nose needing reattaching.briantrumpet said:Seems there are consequences to not playing ball. And yes, it might be the EU playing hardball, but I'd not expect them to extol the virtues of pulling up the drawbridge.
Still, who needs lefty academics?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jul/05/eu-scraps-115-grants-uk-scientists-academics-brexit-rowBritish scientists and academic researchers have been dealt a blow after 115 grants from a flagship EU research programme were terminated because of the continuing Brexit row over Northern Ireland.
One academic said he was “relieved” to be exiting the country and feared the UK was going down a “dark path” like Germany in the 1930s.
One hundred and fifty grants were approved for British applicants after the then Brexit minister, David Frost, successfully negotiated associate membership of the £80bn Horizon Europe programme but most will now be cancelled.
Beneficiaries in the UK were told by the European Research Council (ERC) that unless associate membership had been approved by 29 June, the grants would not be available unless the researchers moved their work to a European institution.
Ratification of the membership has been in abeyance because the UK has not implemented the Brexit trading arrangements agreed under the Northern Ireland protocol.
With the deadline passed, it has emerged that just 18 of the 150 academics will take up the grants but must move to an EU institution to get the funds.
What are the EU losing? Seems to me that they are gaining from this; the loss is all the UK's - economically and skills-wise.
Can you not accept that the UK is in % terms the far bigger loser? The EU were never going to roll over (pointed out, ad nauseam) in the face of the UK asserting it could have all the benefits of EU membership without any of the responsibilities. Why should they fund a nation that is doing all it can to distance itself from the EU?
THis is merely the consequence of the chimera of 'sovereignty' being pursued with a religious zeal.
Is it? Isn't it just moving to the EU?1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
This is what I first said on the subject. There are no winners and science loses.rjsterry said:
On that, yes. Stopping international collaboration is a loss for everyone. Somewhat unrealistic to expect one party to carry on funding unilaterally, though.TheBigBean said:
No payments to Horizon though, so it would be a straight swap. Cost is the same, but no cross border collaboration.rjsterry said:
Where the money is coming from is irrelevant. There's just less of it.Stevo_666 said:
I'm sure we are capable of funding academic research ourselves - and making the decision on who and what to fund - rather than handing the money over to the EU and allowing them to decide who is worthy of funding.rjsterry said:
UK academic research started getting cancelled almost as soon as we left as the funding was cut. EU universities were then suing UK institutions for crashing joint research projects part way through. This was all pre-covid. I mean maybe this will all turn around but it seems unlikely given we don't actually have a Chancellor at the moment and they've already had several years to put something in place.Stevo_666 said:
It's a dirty job, but somebody in Cake Stop has to do it.rjsterry said:
Ever the optimist.TheBigBean said:
It's reducing its size (no UK contributions) and only funding research in the EU. As a result it is harder for UK-EU scientific research to take place. Science loses. The EU may be hoping that lots of scientists move to the EU, but they move in the other direction (as the UK will start funding science) or simply not collaborate.briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
Science is losing. That is the point of the fund. No one is winning.briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
It's been the case for a while. Sadly, it's another case of the nose needing reattaching.briantrumpet said:Seems there are consequences to not playing ball. And yes, it might be the EU playing hardball, but I'd not expect them to extol the virtues of pulling up the drawbridge.
Still, who needs lefty academics?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jul/05/eu-scraps-115-grants-uk-scientists-academics-brexit-rowBritish scientists and academic researchers have been dealt a blow after 115 grants from a flagship EU research programme were terminated because of the continuing Brexit row over Northern Ireland.
One academic said he was “relieved” to be exiting the country and feared the UK was going down a “dark path” like Germany in the 1930s.
One hundred and fifty grants were approved for British applicants after the then Brexit minister, David Frost, successfully negotiated associate membership of the £80bn Horizon Europe programme but most will now be cancelled.
Beneficiaries in the UK were told by the European Research Council (ERC) that unless associate membership had been approved by 29 June, the grants would not be available unless the researchers moved their work to a European institution.
Ratification of the membership has been in abeyance because the UK has not implemented the Brexit trading arrangements agreed under the Northern Ireland protocol.
With the deadline passed, it has emerged that just 18 of the 150 academics will take up the grants but must move to an EU institution to get the funds.
What are the EU losing? Seems to me that they are gaining from this; the loss is all the UK's - economically and skills-wise.
Can you not accept that the UK is in % terms the far bigger loser? The EU were never going to roll over (pointed out, ad nauseam) in the face of the UK asserting it could have all the benefits of EU membership without any of the responsibilities. Why should they fund a nation that is doing all it can to distance itself from the EU?
THis is merely the consequence of the chimera of 'sovereignty' being pursued with a religious zeal.
Is it? Isn't it just moving to the EU?0 -
It is relevant because we get to decide. The amounts going forward will also depend on what we decide. There a pattern emerging here...rjsterry said:
Where the money is coming from is irrelevant. There's just less of it.Stevo_666 said:
I'm sure we are capable of funding academic research ourselves - and making the decision on who and what to fund - rather than handing the money over to the EU and allowing them to decide who is worthy of funding.rjsterry said:
UK academic research started getting cancelled almost as soon as we left as the funding was cut. EU universities were then suing UK institutions for crashing joint research projects part way through. This was all pre-covid. I mean maybe this will all turn around but it seems unlikely given we don't actually have a Chancellor at the moment and they've already had several years to put something in place.Stevo_666 said:
It's a dirty job, but somebody in Cake Stop has to do it.rjsterry said:
Ever the optimist.TheBigBean said:
It's reducing its size (no UK contributions) and only funding research in the EU. As a result it is harder for UK-EU scientific research to take place. Science loses. The EU may be hoping that lots of scientists move to the EU, but they move in the other direction (as the UK will start funding science) or simply not collaborate.briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
Science is losing. That is the point of the fund. No one is winning.briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
It's been the case for a while. Sadly, it's another case of the nose needing reattaching.briantrumpet said:Seems there are consequences to not playing ball. And yes, it might be the EU playing hardball, but I'd not expect them to extol the virtues of pulling up the drawbridge.
Still, who needs lefty academics?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jul/05/eu-scraps-115-grants-uk-scientists-academics-brexit-rowBritish scientists and academic researchers have been dealt a blow after 115 grants from a flagship EU research programme were terminated because of the continuing Brexit row over Northern Ireland.
One academic said he was “relieved” to be exiting the country and feared the UK was going down a “dark path” like Germany in the 1930s.
One hundred and fifty grants were approved for British applicants after the then Brexit minister, David Frost, successfully negotiated associate membership of the £80bn Horizon Europe programme but most will now be cancelled.
Beneficiaries in the UK were told by the European Research Council (ERC) that unless associate membership had been approved by 29 June, the grants would not be available unless the researchers moved their work to a European institution.
Ratification of the membership has been in abeyance because the UK has not implemented the Brexit trading arrangements agreed under the Northern Ireland protocol.
With the deadline passed, it has emerged that just 18 of the 150 academics will take up the grants but must move to an EU institution to get the funds.
What are the EU losing? Seems to me that they are gaining from this; the loss is all the UK's - economically and skills-wise.
Can you not accept that the UK is in % terms the far bigger loser? The EU were never going to roll over (pointed out, ad nauseam) in the face of the UK asserting it could have all the benefits of EU membership without any of the responsibilities. Why should they fund a nation that is doing all it can to distance itself from the EU?
THis is merely the consequence of the chimera of 'sovereignty' being pursued with a religious zeal.
Is it? Isn't it just moving to the EU?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
.Stevo_666 said:
It is relevant because we get to decide. The amounts going forward will also depend on what we decide. There a pattern emerging here...rjsterry said:
Where the money is coming from is irrelevant. There's just less of it.Stevo_666 said:
I'm sure we are capable of funding academic research ourselves - and making the decision on who and what to fund - rather than handing the money over to the EU and allowing them to decide who is worthy of funding.rjsterry said:
UK academic research started getting cancelled almost as soon as we left as the funding was cut. EU universities were then suing UK institutions for crashing joint research projects part way through. This was all pre-covid. I mean maybe this will all turn around but it seems unlikely given we don't actually have a Chancellor at the moment and they've already had several years to put something in place.Stevo_666 said:
It's a dirty job, but somebody in Cake Stop has to do it.rjsterry said:
Ever the optimist.TheBigBean said:
It's reducing its size (no UK contributions) and only funding research in the EU. As a result it is harder for UK-EU scientific research to take place. Science loses. The EU may be hoping that lots of scientists move to the EU, but they move in the other direction (as the UK will start funding science) or simply not collaborate.briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
Science is losing. That is the point of the fund. No one is winning.briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
It's been the case for a while. Sadly, it's another case of the nose needing reattaching.briantrumpet said:Seems there are consequences to not playing ball. And yes, it might be the EU playing hardball, but I'd not expect them to extol the virtues of pulling up the drawbridge.
Still, who needs lefty academics?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jul/05/eu-scraps-115-grants-uk-scientists-academics-brexit-rowBritish scientists and academic researchers have been dealt a blow after 115 grants from a flagship EU research programme were terminated because of the continuing Brexit row over Northern Ireland.
One academic said he was “relieved” to be exiting the country and feared the UK was going down a “dark path” like Germany in the 1930s.
One hundred and fifty grants were approved for British applicants after the then Brexit minister, David Frost, successfully negotiated associate membership of the £80bn Horizon Europe programme but most will now be cancelled.
Beneficiaries in the UK were told by the European Research Council (ERC) that unless associate membership had been approved by 29 June, the grants would not be available unless the researchers moved their work to a European institution.
Ratification of the membership has been in abeyance because the UK has not implemented the Brexit trading arrangements agreed under the Northern Ireland protocol.
With the deadline passed, it has emerged that just 18 of the 150 academics will take up the grants but must move to an EU institution to get the funds.
What are the EU losing? Seems to me that they are gaining from this; the loss is all the UK's - economically and skills-wise.
Can you not accept that the UK is in % terms the far bigger loser? The EU were never going to roll over (pointed out, ad nauseam) in the face of the UK asserting it could have all the benefits of EU membership without any of the responsibilities. Why should they fund a nation that is doing all it can to distance itself from the EU?
THis is merely the consequence of the chimera of 'sovereignty' being pursued with a religious zeal.
Is it? Isn't it just moving to the EU?
You're right, there is.
Insularity.0 -
Fairly sure I got called a scaremonger for suggesting that this would be an outcome of Brexit back in the day.TheBigBean said:
Yes, the EU explicitly committed to working with the UK to let it join horizon. It was spelt out.briantrumpet said:.
TheBigBean said:
It's reducing its size (no UK contributions) and only funding research in the EU. As a result it is harder for UK-EU scientific research to take place. Science loses. The EU may be hoping that lots of scientists move to the EU, but they move in the other direction (as the UK will start funding science) or simply not collaborate.briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
Science is losing. That is the point of the fund. No one is winning.briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
It's been the case for a while. Sadly, it's another case of the nose needing reattaching.briantrumpet said:Seems there are consequences to not playing ball. And yes, it might be the EU playing hardball, but I'd not expect them to extol the virtues of pulling up the drawbridge.
Still, who needs lefty academics?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jul/05/eu-scraps-115-grants-uk-scientists-academics-brexit-rowBritish scientists and academic researchers have been dealt a blow after 115 grants from a flagship EU research programme were terminated because of the continuing Brexit row over Northern Ireland.
One academic said he was “relieved” to be exiting the country and feared the UK was going down a “dark path” like Germany in the 1930s.
One hundred and fifty grants were approved for British applicants after the then Brexit minister, David Frost, successfully negotiated associate membership of the £80bn Horizon Europe programme but most will now be cancelled.
Beneficiaries in the UK were told by the European Research Council (ERC) that unless associate membership had been approved by 29 June, the grants would not be available unless the researchers moved their work to a European institution.
Ratification of the membership has been in abeyance because the UK has not implemented the Brexit trading arrangements agreed under the Northern Ireland protocol.
With the deadline passed, it has emerged that just 18 of the 150 academics will take up the grants but must move to an EU institution to get the funds.
What are the EU losing? Seems to me that they are gaining from this; the loss is all the UK's - economically and skills-wise.
Can you not accept that the UK is in % terms the far bigger loser? The EU were never going to roll over (pointed out, ad nauseam) in the face of the UK asserting it could have all the benefits of EU membership without any of the responsibilities. Why should they fund a nation that is doing all it can to distance itself from the EU?
THis is merely the consequence of the chimera of 'sovereignty' being pursued with a religious zeal.
Is it? Isn't it just moving to the EU?
I'll not disagree that science loses, but, as I say, you can't expect the UK's isolationist stance to have no consequences. Blame it on Brexit, if you like: the EU didn't choose that course of action, that was the UK's choice, and the ramifications were either spelt out or implicit.0 -
I find it very odd that to this day people don't get that you are either a member of the EU or you are a 3rd countryrick_chasey said:
Fairly sure I got called a scaremonger for suggesting that this would be an outcome of Brexit back in the day.TheBigBean said:
Yes, the EU explicitly committed to working with the UK to let it join horizon. It was spelt out.briantrumpet said:.
TheBigBean said:
It's reducing its size (no UK contributions) and only funding research in the EU. As a result it is harder for UK-EU scientific research to take place. Science loses. The EU may be hoping that lots of scientists move to the EU, but they move in the other direction (as the UK will start funding science) or simply not collaborate.briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
Science is losing. That is the point of the fund. No one is winning.briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
It's been the case for a while. Sadly, it's another case of the nose needing reattaching.briantrumpet said:Seems there are consequences to not playing ball. And yes, it might be the EU playing hardball, but I'd not expect them to extol the virtues of pulling up the drawbridge.
Still, who needs lefty academics?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jul/05/eu-scraps-115-grants-uk-scientists-academics-brexit-rowBritish scientists and academic researchers have been dealt a blow after 115 grants from a flagship EU research programme were terminated because of the continuing Brexit row over Northern Ireland.
One academic said he was “relieved” to be exiting the country and feared the UK was going down a “dark path” like Germany in the 1930s.
One hundred and fifty grants were approved for British applicants after the then Brexit minister, David Frost, successfully negotiated associate membership of the £80bn Horizon Europe programme but most will now be cancelled.
Beneficiaries in the UK were told by the European Research Council (ERC) that unless associate membership had been approved by 29 June, the grants would not be available unless the researchers moved their work to a European institution.
Ratification of the membership has been in abeyance because the UK has not implemented the Brexit trading arrangements agreed under the Northern Ireland protocol.
With the deadline passed, it has emerged that just 18 of the 150 academics will take up the grants but must move to an EU institution to get the funds.
What are the EU losing? Seems to me that they are gaining from this; the loss is all the UK's - economically and skills-wise.
Can you not accept that the UK is in % terms the far bigger loser? The EU were never going to roll over (pointed out, ad nauseam) in the face of the UK asserting it could have all the benefits of EU membership without any of the responsibilities. Why should they fund a nation that is doing all it can to distance itself from the EU?
THis is merely the consequence of the chimera of 'sovereignty' being pursued with a religious zeal.
Is it? Isn't it just moving to the EU?
I'll not disagree that science loses, but, as I say, you can't expect the UK's isolationist stance to have no consequences. Blame it on Brexit, if you like: the EU didn't choose that course of action, that was the UK's choice, and the ramifications were either spelt out or implicit.0 -
And we're back to the idea that governments can pick winners. I know you believe that implicitly everything associated with the EU is not as good as the UK. You don't need to keep reiterating it. There is just now less money to spend on research. At the moment there is no plan to replace Horizon spending. Maybe at some point in the future a government will rectify this but it's clearly not happening at the moment.Stevo_666 said:
It is relevant because we get to decide. The amounts going forward will also depend on what we decide. There a pattern emerging here...rjsterry said:
Where the money is coming from is irrelevant. There's just less of it.Stevo_666 said:
I'm sure we are capable of funding academic research ourselves - and making the decision on who and what to fund - rather than handing the money over to the EU and allowing them to decide who is worthy of funding.rjsterry said:
UK academic research started getting cancelled almost as soon as we left as the funding was cut. EU universities were then suing UK institutions for crashing joint research projects part way through. This was all pre-covid. I mean maybe this will all turn around but it seems unlikely given we don't actually have a Chancellor at the moment and they've already had several years to put something in place.Stevo_666 said:
It's a dirty job, but somebody in Cake Stop has to do it.rjsterry said:
Ever the optimist.TheBigBean said:
It's reducing its size (no UK contributions) and only funding research in the EU. As a result it is harder for UK-EU scientific research to take place. Science loses. The EU may be hoping that lots of scientists move to the EU, but they move in the other direction (as the UK will start funding science) or simply not collaborate.briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
Science is losing. That is the point of the fund. No one is winning.briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
It's been the case for a while. Sadly, it's another case of the nose needing reattaching.briantrumpet said:Seems there are consequences to not playing ball. And yes, it might be the EU playing hardball, but I'd not expect them to extol the virtues of pulling up the drawbridge.
Still, who needs lefty academics?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jul/05/eu-scraps-115-grants-uk-scientists-academics-brexit-rowBritish scientists and academic researchers have been dealt a blow after 115 grants from a flagship EU research programme were terminated because of the continuing Brexit row over Northern Ireland.
One academic said he was “relieved” to be exiting the country and feared the UK was going down a “dark path” like Germany in the 1930s.
One hundred and fifty grants were approved for British applicants after the then Brexit minister, David Frost, successfully negotiated associate membership of the £80bn Horizon Europe programme but most will now be cancelled.
Beneficiaries in the UK were told by the European Research Council (ERC) that unless associate membership had been approved by 29 June, the grants would not be available unless the researchers moved their work to a European institution.
Ratification of the membership has been in abeyance because the UK has not implemented the Brexit trading arrangements agreed under the Northern Ireland protocol.
With the deadline passed, it has emerged that just 18 of the 150 academics will take up the grants but must move to an EU institution to get the funds.
What are the EU losing? Seems to me that they are gaining from this; the loss is all the UK's - economically and skills-wise.
Can you not accept that the UK is in % terms the far bigger loser? The EU were never going to roll over (pointed out, ad nauseam) in the face of the UK asserting it could have all the benefits of EU membership without any of the responsibilities. Why should they fund a nation that is doing all it can to distance itself from the EU?
THis is merely the consequence of the chimera of 'sovereignty' being pursued with a religious zeal.
Is it? Isn't it just moving to the EU?1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
surrey_commuter said:
I find it very odd that to this day people don't get that you are either a member of the EU or you are a 3rd countryrick_chasey said:
Fairly sure I got called a scaremonger for suggesting that this would be an outcome of Brexit back in the day.TheBigBean said:
Yes, the EU explicitly committed to working with the UK to let it join horizon. It was spelt out.briantrumpet said:.
TheBigBean said:
It's reducing its size (no UK contributions) and only funding research in the EU. As a result it is harder for UK-EU scientific research to take place. Science loses. The EU may be hoping that lots of scientists move to the EU, but they move in the other direction (as the UK will start funding science) or simply not collaborate.briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
Science is losing. That is the point of the fund. No one is winning.briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
It's been the case for a while. Sadly, it's another case of the nose needing reattaching.briantrumpet said:Seems there are consequences to not playing ball. And yes, it might be the EU playing hardball, but I'd not expect them to extol the virtues of pulling up the drawbridge.
Still, who needs lefty academics?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jul/05/eu-scraps-115-grants-uk-scientists-academics-brexit-rowBritish scientists and academic researchers have been dealt a blow after 115 grants from a flagship EU research programme were terminated because of the continuing Brexit row over Northern Ireland.
One academic said he was “relieved” to be exiting the country and feared the UK was going down a “dark path” like Germany in the 1930s.
One hundred and fifty grants were approved for British applicants after the then Brexit minister, David Frost, successfully negotiated associate membership of the £80bn Horizon Europe programme but most will now be cancelled.
Beneficiaries in the UK were told by the European Research Council (ERC) that unless associate membership had been approved by 29 June, the grants would not be available unless the researchers moved their work to a European institution.
Ratification of the membership has been in abeyance because the UK has not implemented the Brexit trading arrangements agreed under the Northern Ireland protocol.
With the deadline passed, it has emerged that just 18 of the 150 academics will take up the grants but must move to an EU institution to get the funds.
What are the EU losing? Seems to me that they are gaining from this; the loss is all the UK's - economically and skills-wise.
Can you not accept that the UK is in % terms the far bigger loser? The EU were never going to roll over (pointed out, ad nauseam) in the face of the UK asserting it could have all the benefits of EU membership without any of the responsibilities. Why should they fund a nation that is doing all it can to distance itself from the EU?
THis is merely the consequence of the chimera of 'sovereignty' being pursued with a religious zeal.
Is it? Isn't it just moving to the EU?
I'll not disagree that science loses, but, as I say, you can't expect the UK's isolationist stance to have no consequences. Blame it on Brexit, if you like: the EU didn't choose that course of action, that was the UK's choice, and the ramifications were either spelt out or implicit.
That was the lie that the cake & eat it unicorn was based on. EU were never going to allow that, for all the reasons stated ad nauseam. "It's the EU's fault" for applying the conditions they said they'd apply.
This is still my favourite Brexit cartoon, as it captures the idiocy, the sadness, the bemusement, and the futility of it all.
0 -
I think it works on the assumption of "if collaboration is in everyone's best interest, then why should brexit stop that as it's in everyone's interest to collaborate" which rather misses the point of the EU and indeed Brexit.surrey_commuter said:
I find it very odd that to this day people don't get that you are either a member of the EU or you are a 3rd countryrick_chasey said:
Fairly sure I got called a scaremonger for suggesting that this would be an outcome of Brexit back in the day.TheBigBean said:
Yes, the EU explicitly committed to working with the UK to let it join horizon. It was spelt out.briantrumpet said:.
TheBigBean said:
It's reducing its size (no UK contributions) and only funding research in the EU. As a result it is harder for UK-EU scientific research to take place. Science loses. The EU may be hoping that lots of scientists move to the EU, but they move in the other direction (as the UK will start funding science) or simply not collaborate.briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
Science is losing. That is the point of the fund. No one is winning.briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
It's been the case for a while. Sadly, it's another case of the nose needing reattaching.briantrumpet said:Seems there are consequences to not playing ball. And yes, it might be the EU playing hardball, but I'd not expect them to extol the virtues of pulling up the drawbridge.
Still, who needs lefty academics?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jul/05/eu-scraps-115-grants-uk-scientists-academics-brexit-rowBritish scientists and academic researchers have been dealt a blow after 115 grants from a flagship EU research programme were terminated because of the continuing Brexit row over Northern Ireland.
One academic said he was “relieved” to be exiting the country and feared the UK was going down a “dark path” like Germany in the 1930s.
One hundred and fifty grants were approved for British applicants after the then Brexit minister, David Frost, successfully negotiated associate membership of the £80bn Horizon Europe programme but most will now be cancelled.
Beneficiaries in the UK were told by the European Research Council (ERC) that unless associate membership had been approved by 29 June, the grants would not be available unless the researchers moved their work to a European institution.
Ratification of the membership has been in abeyance because the UK has not implemented the Brexit trading arrangements agreed under the Northern Ireland protocol.
With the deadline passed, it has emerged that just 18 of the 150 academics will take up the grants but must move to an EU institution to get the funds.
What are the EU losing? Seems to me that they are gaining from this; the loss is all the UK's - economically and skills-wise.
Can you not accept that the UK is in % terms the far bigger loser? The EU were never going to roll over (pointed out, ad nauseam) in the face of the UK asserting it could have all the benefits of EU membership without any of the responsibilities. Why should they fund a nation that is doing all it can to distance itself from the EU?
THis is merely the consequence of the chimera of 'sovereignty' being pursued with a religious zeal.
Is it? Isn't it just moving to the EU?
I'll not disagree that science loses, but, as I say, you can't expect the UK's isolationist stance to have no consequences. Blame it on Brexit, if you like: the EU didn't choose that course of action, that was the UK's choice, and the ramifications were either spelt out or implicit.0 -
These people have dedicated their lives to hating the EU, how can they have so little understanding of how it works?rick_chasey said:
I think it works on the assumption of "if collaboration is in everyone's best interest, then why should brexit stop that as it's in everyone's interest to collaborate" which rather misses the point of the EU and indeed Brexit.surrey_commuter said:
I find it very odd that to this day people don't get that you are either a member of the EU or you are a 3rd countryrick_chasey said:
Fairly sure I got called a scaremonger for suggesting that this would be an outcome of Brexit back in the day.TheBigBean said:
Yes, the EU explicitly committed to working with the UK to let it join horizon. It was spelt out.briantrumpet said:.
TheBigBean said:
It's reducing its size (no UK contributions) and only funding research in the EU. As a result it is harder for UK-EU scientific research to take place. Science loses. The EU may be hoping that lots of scientists move to the EU, but they move in the other direction (as the UK will start funding science) or simply not collaborate.briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
Science is losing. That is the point of the fund. No one is winning.briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
It's been the case for a while. Sadly, it's another case of the nose needing reattaching.briantrumpet said:Seems there are consequences to not playing ball. And yes, it might be the EU playing hardball, but I'd not expect them to extol the virtues of pulling up the drawbridge.
Still, who needs lefty academics?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jul/05/eu-scraps-115-grants-uk-scientists-academics-brexit-rowBritish scientists and academic researchers have been dealt a blow after 115 grants from a flagship EU research programme were terminated because of the continuing Brexit row over Northern Ireland.
One academic said he was “relieved” to be exiting the country and feared the UK was going down a “dark path” like Germany in the 1930s.
One hundred and fifty grants were approved for British applicants after the then Brexit minister, David Frost, successfully negotiated associate membership of the £80bn Horizon Europe programme but most will now be cancelled.
Beneficiaries in the UK were told by the European Research Council (ERC) that unless associate membership had been approved by 29 June, the grants would not be available unless the researchers moved their work to a European institution.
Ratification of the membership has been in abeyance because the UK has not implemented the Brexit trading arrangements agreed under the Northern Ireland protocol.
With the deadline passed, it has emerged that just 18 of the 150 academics will take up the grants but must move to an EU institution to get the funds.
What are the EU losing? Seems to me that they are gaining from this; the loss is all the UK's - economically and skills-wise.
Can you not accept that the UK is in % terms the far bigger loser? The EU were never going to roll over (pointed out, ad nauseam) in the face of the UK asserting it could have all the benefits of EU membership without any of the responsibilities. Why should they fund a nation that is doing all it can to distance itself from the EU?
THis is merely the consequence of the chimera of 'sovereignty' being pursued with a religious zeal.
Is it? Isn't it just moving to the EU?
I'll not disagree that science loses, but, as I say, you can't expect the UK's isolationist stance to have no consequences. Blame it on Brexit, if you like: the EU didn't choose that course of action, that was the UK's choice, and the ramifications were either spelt out or implicit.0 -
Because there was no reasoned argument.surrey_commuter said:
These people have dedicated their lives to hating the EU, how can they have so little understanding of how it works?rick_chasey said:
I think it works on the assumption of "if collaboration is in everyone's best interest, then why should brexit stop that as it's in everyone's interest to collaborate" which rather misses the point of the EU and indeed Brexit.surrey_commuter said:
I find it very odd that to this day people don't get that you are either a member of the EU or you are a 3rd countryrick_chasey said:
Fairly sure I got called a scaremonger for suggesting that this would be an outcome of Brexit back in the day.TheBigBean said:
Yes, the EU explicitly committed to working with the UK to let it join horizon. It was spelt out.briantrumpet said:.
TheBigBean said:
It's reducing its size (no UK contributions) and only funding research in the EU. As a result it is harder for UK-EU scientific research to take place. Science loses. The EU may be hoping that lots of scientists move to the EU, but they move in the other direction (as the UK will start funding science) or simply not collaborate.briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
Science is losing. That is the point of the fund. No one is winning.briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
It's been the case for a while. Sadly, it's another case of the nose needing reattaching.briantrumpet said:Seems there are consequences to not playing ball. And yes, it might be the EU playing hardball, but I'd not expect them to extol the virtues of pulling up the drawbridge.
Still, who needs lefty academics?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jul/05/eu-scraps-115-grants-uk-scientists-academics-brexit-rowBritish scientists and academic researchers have been dealt a blow after 115 grants from a flagship EU research programme were terminated because of the continuing Brexit row over Northern Ireland.
One academic said he was “relieved” to be exiting the country and feared the UK was going down a “dark path” like Germany in the 1930s.
One hundred and fifty grants were approved for British applicants after the then Brexit minister, David Frost, successfully negotiated associate membership of the £80bn Horizon Europe programme but most will now be cancelled.
Beneficiaries in the UK were told by the European Research Council (ERC) that unless associate membership had been approved by 29 June, the grants would not be available unless the researchers moved their work to a European institution.
Ratification of the membership has been in abeyance because the UK has not implemented the Brexit trading arrangements agreed under the Northern Ireland protocol.
With the deadline passed, it has emerged that just 18 of the 150 academics will take up the grants but must move to an EU institution to get the funds.
What are the EU losing? Seems to me that they are gaining from this; the loss is all the UK's - economically and skills-wise.
Can you not accept that the UK is in % terms the far bigger loser? The EU were never going to roll over (pointed out, ad nauseam) in the face of the UK asserting it could have all the benefits of EU membership without any of the responsibilities. Why should they fund a nation that is doing all it can to distance itself from the EU?
THis is merely the consequence of the chimera of 'sovereignty' being pursued with a religious zeal.
Is it? Isn't it just moving to the EU?
I'll not disagree that science loses, but, as I say, you can't expect the UK's isolationist stance to have no consequences. Blame it on Brexit, if you like: the EU didn't choose that course of action, that was the UK's choice, and the ramifications were either spelt out or implicit.
They have simply had a one dimensional view of the Eu stops/allows ‘x’. Therefore i am anti.
No pros and cons analysis has taken place for many of these people.
At least Bojo managed that bit.0 -
Jan 1st 1958. European Economic Community, better known as the European Common Market starts operation
0 -
Jan 7 1958, USSR reduces army to 300,0000
-
Jan 13 1958, 9,000 scientists of 43 nations petition UN for nuclear test ban
I will stop there, because there are lots more and I can see some opposition to my posting of interesting facts in 1958.0 -
Why would the EU picking our winners for us be better?rjsterry said:
And we're back to the idea that governments can pick winners. I know you believe that implicitly everything associated with the EU is not as good as the UK. You don't need to keep reiterating it. There is just now less money to spend on research. At the moment there is no plan to replace Horizon spending. Maybe at some point in the future a government will rectify this but it's clearly not happening at the moment.Stevo_666 said:
It is relevant because we get to decide. The amounts going forward will also depend on what we decide. There a pattern emerging here...rjsterry said:
Where the money is coming from is irrelevant. There's just less of it.Stevo_666 said:
I'm sure we are capable of funding academic research ourselves - and making the decision on who and what to fund - rather than handing the money over to the EU and allowing them to decide who is worthy of funding.rjsterry said:
UK academic research started getting cancelled almost as soon as we left as the funding was cut. EU universities were then suing UK institutions for crashing joint research projects part way through. This was all pre-covid. I mean maybe this will all turn around but it seems unlikely given we don't actually have a Chancellor at the moment and they've already had several years to put something in place.Stevo_666 said:
It's a dirty job, but somebody in Cake Stop has to do it.rjsterry said:
Ever the optimist.TheBigBean said:
It's reducing its size (no UK contributions) and only funding research in the EU. As a result it is harder for UK-EU scientific research to take place. Science loses. The EU may be hoping that lots of scientists move to the EU, but they move in the other direction (as the UK will start funding science) or simply not collaborate.briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
Science is losing. That is the point of the fund. No one is winning.briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
It's been the case for a while. Sadly, it's another case of the nose needing reattaching.briantrumpet said:Seems there are consequences to not playing ball. And yes, it might be the EU playing hardball, but I'd not expect them to extol the virtues of pulling up the drawbridge.
Still, who needs lefty academics?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jul/05/eu-scraps-115-grants-uk-scientists-academics-brexit-rowBritish scientists and academic researchers have been dealt a blow after 115 grants from a flagship EU research programme were terminated because of the continuing Brexit row over Northern Ireland.
One academic said he was “relieved” to be exiting the country and feared the UK was going down a “dark path” like Germany in the 1930s.
One hundred and fifty grants were approved for British applicants after the then Brexit minister, David Frost, successfully negotiated associate membership of the £80bn Horizon Europe programme but most will now be cancelled.
Beneficiaries in the UK were told by the European Research Council (ERC) that unless associate membership had been approved by 29 June, the grants would not be available unless the researchers moved their work to a European institution.
Ratification of the membership has been in abeyance because the UK has not implemented the Brexit trading arrangements agreed under the Northern Ireland protocol.
With the deadline passed, it has emerged that just 18 of the 150 academics will take up the grants but must move to an EU institution to get the funds.
What are the EU losing? Seems to me that they are gaining from this; the loss is all the UK's - economically and skills-wise.
Can you not accept that the UK is in % terms the far bigger loser? The EU were never going to roll over (pointed out, ad nauseam) in the face of the UK asserting it could have all the benefits of EU membership without any of the responsibilities. Why should they fund a nation that is doing all it can to distance itself from the EU?
THis is merely the consequence of the chimera of 'sovereignty' being pursued with a religious zeal.
Is it? Isn't it just moving to the EU?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0
