This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
I think Remain have won this one. And please don't reply with posts claiming that Boris has written a not-very-good book and Nigel has a GCSE.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36505736
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36505736
10
9
In reply to Pekkie:
Odd that. You'd think they'd be smart enough to notice that membership of big European projects is not tied to EU membership (CERN existed before the EU and half of it is not even Physically in the EU). Not all EU members are in ESO or ESA, and non-EU nations are in ESO and ESA, for example. For smaller projects. the UKs funding from the EU via H2020 is money that the UK first gives to H2020 via the EU. Non-EU institutions regularly take part in H2020 projects with national funding pegged to the project.
Science within the UK regularly partners successfully with both EU and non-EU organisations. Science within the EU regularly partners successfully with people outside the EU.
International scientific collaboration forms where there are resources (land, money, knowledge, technology) and the political will to commit it. The UK is currently formalising joint funding arrangements with the US for science, for example.
I have not seen any evidence that the UK would be forced to leave any large European scientific endeavour upon an EU exit. Typically membership of these projects is based on legal agreements signed at the national level and has sweet F.A. to do with the EU, other than that some fraction of national research budgets are redisbursed via the EU.
I am firmly in the remain camp but I am rather disappointed at the scale of fear mongering coming from parts of the establishment in lieu of a focus on the real issues.
Odd that. You'd think they'd be smart enough to notice that membership of big European projects is not tied to EU membership (CERN existed before the EU and half of it is not even Physically in the EU). Not all EU members are in ESO or ESA, and non-EU nations are in ESO and ESA, for example. For smaller projects. the UKs funding from the EU via H2020 is money that the UK first gives to H2020 via the EU. Non-EU institutions regularly take part in H2020 projects with national funding pegged to the project.
Science within the UK regularly partners successfully with both EU and non-EU organisations. Science within the EU regularly partners successfully with people outside the EU.
International scientific collaboration forms where there are resources (land, money, knowledge, technology) and the political will to commit it. The UK is currently formalising joint funding arrangements with the US for science, for example.
I have not seen any evidence that the UK would be forced to leave any large European scientific endeavour upon an EU exit. Typically membership of these projects is based on legal agreements signed at the national level and has sweet F.A. to do with the EU, other than that some fraction of national research budgets are redisbursed via the EU.
I am firmly in the remain camp but I am rather disappointed at the scale of fear mongering coming from parts of the establishment in lieu of a focus on the real issues.
Post edited at 12:48
17
1
In reply to wintertree:
As someone who applied and benefited from FP7 research funding, I can tell you, you are utterly wrong.
As someone who applied and benefited from FP7 research funding, I can tell you, you are utterly wrong.
12
12
In reply to RomTheBear:
I have been involved in FP8/2020 and I could tell you you are utterly wrong. I won't, because that would be dismissively rude. Edit: You'll note that in my first post and this reply I give a detailed set of reasons for my thinking and not just a dismissive pronouncement. I note that you have given no detailed reasoning. Simply saying "without FP7 I would not have had funding" does not suffice as one has to imagine the alternative universe where the UK had more money to disburse by other routes due to not funding the ERC. I consider an alternative is the RCUK having more money (~20% I think?) because the ERC contribution is rolled in, and any RCUK project being able to partake in a national application jointly pegged to an H2020 collaboration if the PI so wishes.
Instead I'll note that your FP7 funding came from your country, via the EU. There is nothing to stop your country (which ever one) from instead giving you that money directly, infact from giving you more without the increased overheads incurred by the ERC.
There is the collaborative aspect of the FPns/H2020 that can benefit researches over and above more local funding. However, although you ignored this in my post, the UK will still benefit from European collaboration at the H2020 level if we exit the EU. As I said and you apparently failed to comprehend, non-EU nations regularly take part in H2020 proposals with their national research councils working harmoniously with the ERC on the review and funding processes.
I don't doubt that you benefited from FP7 funding but I also know people not in the EU who have benefited from FP8.
Of course, there is the possibility that the funding the UK government gives to UK researchers via the EU then the ERC would be sent somewhere else. That could be applied to every form of funding the UK sends to itself via the EU and outside of science people are assuming that common sense will prevail.
Edit: It would help if you indicated which part of my view you regarded as "utterly wrong". I assume you are not disagreeing with my comment on membership of larger scale scientific endeavours not actually being determined by EU membership but by national level legal agreements with no predication or preference for EU membership.
> As someone who applied and benefited from FP7 research funding, I can tell you, you are utterly wrong.
I have been involved in FP8/2020 and I could tell you you are utterly wrong. I won't, because that would be dismissively rude. Edit: You'll note that in my first post and this reply I give a detailed set of reasons for my thinking and not just a dismissive pronouncement. I note that you have given no detailed reasoning. Simply saying "without FP7 I would not have had funding" does not suffice as one has to imagine the alternative universe where the UK had more money to disburse by other routes due to not funding the ERC. I consider an alternative is the RCUK having more money (~20% I think?) because the ERC contribution is rolled in, and any RCUK project being able to partake in a national application jointly pegged to an H2020 collaboration if the PI so wishes.
Instead I'll note that your FP7 funding came from your country, via the EU. There is nothing to stop your country (which ever one) from instead giving you that money directly, infact from giving you more without the increased overheads incurred by the ERC.
There is the collaborative aspect of the FPns/H2020 that can benefit researches over and above more local funding. However, although you ignored this in my post, the UK will still benefit from European collaboration at the H2020 level if we exit the EU. As I said and you apparently failed to comprehend, non-EU nations regularly take part in H2020 proposals with their national research councils working harmoniously with the ERC on the review and funding processes.
I don't doubt that you benefited from FP7 funding but I also know people not in the EU who have benefited from FP8.
Of course, there is the possibility that the funding the UK government gives to UK researchers via the EU then the ERC would be sent somewhere else. That could be applied to every form of funding the UK sends to itself via the EU and outside of science people are assuming that common sense will prevail.
Edit: It would help if you indicated which part of my view you regarded as "utterly wrong". I assume you are not disagreeing with my comment on membership of larger scale scientific endeavours not actually being determined by EU membership but by national level legal agreements with no predication or preference for EU membership.
Post edited at 13:26
14
In reply to wintertree:
But that entirely defeats he point. The whole point of this type of funding is to fund pan-European research projects across several universities, instead of having everybody funding their own research in their own corner. It massively enhances efficiency and collaboration.
Sure it can happen outside of the EU, in my experience, it does happens, but it is very marginal, simply because the politics of it are often too difficult to overcome without a common structure.
> I have been involved in FP8/2020 and I could tell you you are utterly wrong. I won't, because that would be rude.
> Instead I'll note that your FP7 funding came from your country, via the EU. There is nothing to stop your country (which ever one) from instead giving you that money directly, infact from giving you more without the increased overheads incurred by the ERC.
But that entirely defeats he point. The whole point of this type of funding is to fund pan-European research projects across several universities, instead of having everybody funding their own research in their own corner. It massively enhances efficiency and collaboration.
Sure it can happen outside of the EU, in my experience, it does happens, but it is very marginal, simply because the politics of it are often too difficult to overcome without a common structure.
Post edited at 13:32
7
10
In reply to RomTheBear:
Nice job of picking and choosing what you responded to there Rom. Disingenuous, to say the least.
I'll just quote myself rater than argue with a brick wall.
I assume you did not lead the FP7 proposal that you were funded under if you claim that it "massively enhances efficiency"...
> But that entirely defeats he point. The whole point of this type of funding is to fund pan-European research projects across several universities, instead of having everybody funding their own research in their own corner. It massively enhances efficiency and collaboration.
Nice job of picking and choosing what you responded to there Rom. Disingenuous, to say the least.
I'll just quote myself rater than argue with a brick wall.
> Non-EU institutions regularly take part in H2020 projects with national funding pegged to the project.
> I also know people not in the EU who have benefited from FP8. (as in working in institutions not in the EU)
> The UK is currently formalising joint funding arrangements with the US for science, for example.
> I also know people not in the EU who have benefited from FP8. (as in working in institutions not in the EU)
> The UK is currently formalising joint funding arrangements with the US for science, for example.
I assume you did not lead the FP7 proposal that you were funded under if you claim that it "massively enhances efficiency"...
Post edited at 13:31
9
In reply to wintertree:
Efficiency woudl have been zero because we probably wouldn't even have tried. The logistic and politics of getting common funding for a common project for 8 universities across Europe would have been overwhelming for a small university.
Anyway it is a moot point as there probably wouldn't be much money left for any sort of significant research in the UK given the almost certain catastrophical economic consequence of a Brexit, nor would there be much anyone to do this research. a good 60% of the researchers in my Uni were Europeans.
> Nice job of picking and choosing what you responded to there Rom. Disingenuous, to say the least.
> I'll just quote myself rater than argue with a brick wall.
> I assume you did not lead the FP7 proposal that you were funded under if you claim that it "massively enhances efficiency"...
Efficiency woudl have been zero because we probably wouldn't even have tried. The logistic and politics of getting common funding for a common project for 8 universities across Europe would have been overwhelming for a small university.
Anyway it is a moot point as there probably wouldn't be much money left for any sort of significant research in the UK given the almost certain catastrophical economic consequence of a Brexit, nor would there be much anyone to do this research. a good 60% of the researchers in my Uni were Europeans.
Post edited at 14:06
1
5
In reply to RomTheBear:
Here you appear to be imagining a world without the ERC, rather than a world with the UK outside the ERC. Having prepared a joint H2020 proposal with institutions from two non-EU members, there did not seem to be an overwhelming quantity of logistical or political problems for either of them. On the contrary, I do not see how I could possibly coordinate the additional quantity of work involved in leading an H2020 proposal (over an RCUK one) as an early career researcher, with other demands on my time.
Here you drift away from the comments linked to by the OP and into unrelated, rank speculation.
This is more relevant to the OP. The concerns from the scientist that I have more time for are (1) the input the UK can make to the strategic direction of ERC funding by being in the EU; which we would likely loose upon an exit, and (2) the free movement of researchers within the EU. Now, in theory, if we left the EU and had a points based immigration system then we would have access to a larger pool of talented researchers as suddenly researchers from scientifically advanced nations outside the EU have a lower barrier to participation. In reality, the points based system will likely be a shambles for some time so there could be significant negative consequences in the short term with some rather bad knock on consequences.
Edit: Part of me wonders if slamming the borders down on science would help change a culture that sees it is advantageous to shunt young people to a new university/country ever 2 years, for a decade or more. Given the increasing extend of global connectivity, perhaps its time for the business model of shunting postdocs around and preventing them from building a family environment to end. Not that I'd leave the EU over it, but its something to mull...
> Efficiency woudl have been zero because we probably wouldn't even have tried. The logistic and politics of getting common funding for a common project for 8 universities across Europe would have been overwhelming for a small university.
Here you appear to be imagining a world without the ERC, rather than a world with the UK outside the ERC. Having prepared a joint H2020 proposal with institutions from two non-EU members, there did not seem to be an overwhelming quantity of logistical or political problems for either of them. On the contrary, I do not see how I could possibly coordinate the additional quantity of work involved in leading an H2020 proposal (over an RCUK one) as an early career researcher, with other demands on my time.
> Anyway it is a moot point as there probably wouldn't be much money left for any sort of significant research in the UK given the almost certain catastrophically economic consequence of a Brexit,
Here you drift away from the comments linked to by the OP and into unrelated, rank speculation.
> nor would there be much anyone to do this research. a good 60% of the researchers in my Uni were Europeans.
This is more relevant to the OP. The concerns from the scientist that I have more time for are (1) the input the UK can make to the strategic direction of ERC funding by being in the EU; which we would likely loose upon an exit, and (2) the free movement of researchers within the EU. Now, in theory, if we left the EU and had a points based immigration system then we would have access to a larger pool of talented researchers as suddenly researchers from scientifically advanced nations outside the EU have a lower barrier to participation. In reality, the points based system will likely be a shambles for some time so there could be significant negative consequences in the short term with some rather bad knock on consequences.
Edit: Part of me wonders if slamming the borders down on science would help change a culture that sees it is advantageous to shunt young people to a new university/country ever 2 years, for a decade or more. Given the increasing extend of global connectivity, perhaps its time for the business model of shunting postdocs around and preventing them from building a family environment to end. Not that I'd leave the EU over it, but its something to mull...
Post edited at 14:00
4
In reply to Pekkie:
Scientists, Nobel Prize winners, artists, most business leaders are for Remain; Donald Trump, football hooligans, Farage, Boris, IDS are for Leave. I think that may substantiate your point.
Scientists, Nobel Prize winners, artists, most business leaders are for Remain; Donald Trump, football hooligans, Farage, Boris, IDS are for Leave. I think that may substantiate your point.
Post edited at 14:50
19
14
In reply to John Stainforth:
Some intelligent contributors may resent that patronising, supercilious, smug, snobbish, elitist point of view - unless - hopefully - it was meant in jest?!!
You may ridicule and pillory the common man/woman, someone who may vote for Trump perhaps, or Farage, some football supporters, but such is the democratic process, and always respect his or her point of view.
Remember Farage got 1 MP for almost 4 million votes, while the SNP got 56 MPs for 1+ million.
Prejudice, politics of envy and class division does not help the debate.
There are both stupid and intelligent people who may vote stay.
DC
> Scientists, Nobel Prize winners, artists, most business leaders are for Remain; Donald Trump, football hooligans, Farage, Boris, IDS are for Leave. I think that may substantiate your point.
Some intelligent contributors may resent that patronising, supercilious, smug, snobbish, elitist point of view - unless - hopefully - it was meant in jest?!!
You may ridicule and pillory the common man/woman, someone who may vote for Trump perhaps, or Farage, some football supporters, but such is the democratic process, and always respect his or her point of view.
Remember Farage got 1 MP for almost 4 million votes, while the SNP got 56 MPs for 1+ million.
Prejudice, politics of envy and class division does not help the debate.
There are both stupid and intelligent people who may vote stay.
DC
18
1
In reply to wintertree:
I've been Principal Investigator and project lead on consortium programmes from FP5 all the way through to H2020, in addition to EPSRC etc.
A couple of observations. Over the last 10 years or so, UK governments have concentrated grant funding in a small number of Russell Group universities (have a look on JeS, rank institutions by annual grants) with the top 20 holding the bulk of funds. Not much funded doctoral training activity outside this group. EU funding, however tends to be a more level playing field, predicated around the soundness of the proposals, so giving more of a chance to Post '92s etc.
However, in order to get the EU funding you often have to broaden the consortium to meet the rules, and end up working with groups who in other circumstances you wouldn't consider, don't even get me started on beaurocracy!
So some ups and some downs then. We historically punch above our weight in EU research funding, so I think we do have something to lose.
A bit of a conundrum. What I am certain of, is that the UK has groupings of some of the finest researchers in the world, and in or out of Europe, they and their Universities will thrive in an increasingly global environment. My group, and industrial partners now spend more contact time with China and Singapore than EU centres. It's something we are really good at here, and should be proud of it.
I've been Principal Investigator and project lead on consortium programmes from FP5 all the way through to H2020, in addition to EPSRC etc.
A couple of observations. Over the last 10 years or so, UK governments have concentrated grant funding in a small number of Russell Group universities (have a look on JeS, rank institutions by annual grants) with the top 20 holding the bulk of funds. Not much funded doctoral training activity outside this group. EU funding, however tends to be a more level playing field, predicated around the soundness of the proposals, so giving more of a chance to Post '92s etc.
However, in order to get the EU funding you often have to broaden the consortium to meet the rules, and end up working with groups who in other circumstances you wouldn't consider, don't even get me started on beaurocracy!
So some ups and some downs then. We historically punch above our weight in EU research funding, so I think we do have something to lose.
A bit of a conundrum. What I am certain of, is that the UK has groupings of some of the finest researchers in the world, and in or out of Europe, they and their Universities will thrive in an increasingly global environment. My group, and industrial partners now spend more contact time with China and Singapore than EU centres. It's something we are really good at here, and should be proud of it.
7
In reply to Dave Cumberland:
It was intended as a purely factual statement. And, of course it is a generalisation.
It was intended as a purely factual statement. And, of course it is a generalisation.
2
1
In reply to Pekkie:
I quite enjoyed 72 Virgins, it had a sort of Vintage Stuff feel to it. Not going to vote for Brexit off the back of it though.
I quite enjoyed 72 Virgins, it had a sort of Vintage Stuff feel to it. Not going to vote for Brexit off the back of it though.
In reply to John Stainforth:
Pure fact.
Such authority.
> It was intended as a purely factual statement. And, of course it is a generalisation.
Pure fact.
Such authority.
3
1
In reply to Dave Cumberland:
People like Trump and Farage do take advantage of generally less well educated people. They take advantage of them not being well informed, and they play on their quite reasonable fears. If anyone pointing that out gets called a snob we're in trouble. And if you're for brexit, which there are plenty of reasonable arguments, and you don't see that your main brexiteers for what they are, then I'm afraid your one of those being taken advantage of.
People like Trump and Farage do take advantage of generally less well educated people. They take advantage of them not being well informed, and they play on their quite reasonable fears. If anyone pointing that out gets called a snob we're in trouble. And if you're for brexit, which there are plenty of reasonable arguments, and you don't see that your main brexiteers for what they are, then I'm afraid your one of those being taken advantage of.
5
5
In reply to Donald82:
In the competition to generate "fear" the Remain campaign leads by a country mile!
I'm still waiting to be told that if we leave we shall lose access to all climbing - in UK and the EU - and that dragon cams will double in price, but I expect that's coming any day now.....
> People like Trump and Farage do take advantage of generally less well educated people. They take advantage of them not being well informed, and they play on their quite reasonable fears.
In the competition to generate "fear" the Remain campaign leads by a country mile!
I'm still waiting to be told that if we leave we shall lose access to all climbing - in UK and the EU - and that dragon cams will double in price, but I expect that's coming any day now.....
6
1
In reply to Donald82:
There are many who would argue the stay campaign are taking advantage of less well-educated folks too! They take advantage of people not understanding the risks of staying in because they are probably less well-informed than leavers. Otherwise we would not be having a referendum in the first place. Belittling people who have passionate views about EU corruption, embezzlement, lack of audit for 22 years etc etc is extremely stupid as well as snobbish. The trouble is NOT thinking about the issues rationally and simply indulging in personal attacks and insulting people of one persuasion or another. That is highly prejudicial because in a democracy everyone deserves their say.
It would be reasonable to say that Cameron and the stay campaign (Corbynites for God's sake) are the exploiters, taking advantage of people.
The main brexiteers as you call them have very strong and valid opinions. They used to be called dinosaurs, xenophobes and racists due to the fear factor of the establishment. Anyone doing that now is disabusing the democratic process. We are all equal in a democracy. Insulting some of the electorate for their views is not on.
Bear in mind Trump and Farage are supported by ordinary hard-working people, not champagne socialists.
> People like Trump and Farage do take advantage of generally less well educated people. They take advantage of them not being well informed, and they play on their quite reasonable fears. If anyone pointing that out gets called a snob we're in trouble. And if you're for brexit, which there are plenty of reasonable arguments, and you don't see that your main brexiteers for what they are, then I'm afraid your one of those being taken advantage of.
There are many who would argue the stay campaign are taking advantage of less well-educated folks too! They take advantage of people not understanding the risks of staying in because they are probably less well-informed than leavers. Otherwise we would not be having a referendum in the first place. Belittling people who have passionate views about EU corruption, embezzlement, lack of audit for 22 years etc etc is extremely stupid as well as snobbish. The trouble is NOT thinking about the issues rationally and simply indulging in personal attacks and insulting people of one persuasion or another. That is highly prejudicial because in a democracy everyone deserves their say.
It would be reasonable to say that Cameron and the stay campaign (Corbynites for God's sake) are the exploiters, taking advantage of people.
The main brexiteers as you call them have very strong and valid opinions. They used to be called dinosaurs, xenophobes and racists due to the fear factor of the establishment. Anyone doing that now is disabusing the democratic process. We are all equal in a democracy. Insulting some of the electorate for their views is not on.
Bear in mind Trump and Farage are supported by ordinary hard-working people, not champagne socialists.
7
In reply to Babika:
Well there's fear mongering with economic projections and there's saying a mob of 77 million islamic extremist rapists are waiting to come in from Turkey.
Well there's fear mongering with economic projections and there's saying a mob of 77 million islamic extremist rapists are waiting to come in from Turkey.
Post edited at 19:20
6
1
In reply to Dave Cumberland:
Sure, the remain have had plenty of nonsense. The thing is I can see that and happily call it what it is. You seem to think Farage, Johnson, Gove et al are reasonable, good people. I believe you have been taken in buddy. No offence intended, but maybe have a think about it
Sure, the remain have had plenty of nonsense. The thing is I can see that and happily call it what it is. You seem to think Farage, Johnson, Gove et al are reasonable, good people. I believe you have been taken in buddy. No offence intended, but maybe have a think about it
2
4
In reply to Babika:
I'd say leave have been less honest (/more dishonest) than remain by a fair wack. Mostly because there happens to be better reasons to stay in.
I'd say leave have been less honest (/more dishonest) than remain by a fair wack. Mostly because there happens to be better reasons to stay in.
1
5
In reply to Donald82:
Well many would say remain have their noses on the trough.
Leavers are free spirits.
Would you want some other person to run your family finances, or would you rather do it yourself?
DC
Well many would say remain have their noses on the trough.
Leavers are free spirits.
Would you want some other person to run your family finances, or would you rather do it yourself?
DC
4
1
3
1
In reply to Dave Cumberland:
It is striking how the insulters imagine that insults are a one-way weapon, that they can insult and belittle all they want, then get all hurt and indignant when themselves hit by some incoming fire. The double standards would be shocking, were they not so laughable. As if "the other side" was just going to listen to its betters and meekly return to doing what their betters tell them, thinking as their betters say they should.
It is also completely ineffective or indeed counter-productive.
I recall arranging to climb through this very website with someone who was, I shame to say, of the Welsh persuasion. Flippantly I promised preemptively to not tell TOOO many sheep jokes the while. His response "I've heard so many sheep jokes, its like water off a ram's back".
People might once have been shocked by being called racists, bigots, little Englanders, swivel-eyed, xenophobes, etc, etc, etc, but the most likely response now is "yea, whatever". The words and the insults, knee-jerk as they so clearly are from the bien-pensants, have become nothing more than water off a ram's back, meaningless background noise and barely noticed, though still slightly annoying.
> Belittling people who have passionate views about EU corruption, embezzlement, lack of audit for 22 years etc etc is extremely stupid as well as snobbish.
It is striking how the insulters imagine that insults are a one-way weapon, that they can insult and belittle all they want, then get all hurt and indignant when themselves hit by some incoming fire. The double standards would be shocking, were they not so laughable. As if "the other side" was just going to listen to its betters and meekly return to doing what their betters tell them, thinking as their betters say they should.
It is also completely ineffective or indeed counter-productive.
I recall arranging to climb through this very website with someone who was, I shame to say, of the Welsh persuasion. Flippantly I promised preemptively to not tell TOOO many sheep jokes the while. His response "I've heard so many sheep jokes, its like water off a ram's back".
People might once have been shocked by being called racists, bigots, little Englanders, swivel-eyed, xenophobes, etc, etc, etc, but the most likely response now is "yea, whatever". The words and the insults, knee-jerk as they so clearly are from the bien-pensants, have become nothing more than water off a ram's back, meaningless background noise and barely noticed, though still slightly annoying.
Post edited at 20:32
5
5
In reply to FreshSlate:
Can you point me to the individual who has publicly said this? Apart from you, that is?
As opposed to the daily utterings from Call me Dave etc that house prices will go up 18%, pensions will not be safe, NHS spending can't be assured and the end of the world is generally nigh.
I think I know who is hell bent on generating the most fear
Can you point me to the individual who has publicly said this? Apart from you, that is?
As opposed to the daily utterings from Call me Dave etc that house prices will go up 18%, pensions will not be safe, NHS spending can't be assured and the end of the world is generally nigh.
I think I know who is hell bent on generating the most fear
Post edited at 20:49
1
4
In reply to Simon4:
Just to be clear, I'm not calling Dave or anyone on here a bigot. (I am certain, though, that there there are more bigots among leave voters than remain.) I am suggesting that IF Dave or anyone else thinks Farage, Johnson, Gove etc. are principled chaps, fighting the good fight, then they're probably a bit thick. Infantile analogies like "would you prefer to run your own finances" suggesting that may unfortunately be the case here.
Is it counter productive pointing out people's stupidity to them? Maybe.. but I expect it makes little difference. Clearly rational arguments haven't worked, so you never know, it might just give them pause
Also, I don't think I'd be too offended if I were insulted back.
Just to be clear, I'm not calling Dave or anyone on here a bigot. (I am certain, though, that there there are more bigots among leave voters than remain.) I am suggesting that IF Dave or anyone else thinks Farage, Johnson, Gove etc. are principled chaps, fighting the good fight, then they're probably a bit thick. Infantile analogies like "would you prefer to run your own finances" suggesting that may unfortunately be the case here.
Is it counter productive pointing out people's stupidity to them? Maybe.. but I expect it makes little difference. Clearly rational arguments haven't worked, so you never know, it might just give them pause
Also, I don't think I'd be too offended if I were insulted back.
3
2
In reply to Simon4:
https://www.bitebackpublishing.com/books/i-find-that-offensive
I reckon you might like this.
https://www.bitebackpublishing.com/books/i-find-that-offensive
I reckon you might like this.
1
In reply to Dave Cumberland:
https://fullfact.org/europe/did-auditors-sign-eu-budget/ TLDR: The books are audited and signed off by the ECA from 2007 to 2014. In 2014 There are ~4.4% of payments in some kind of error, this is not synonymous with waste or fraud.
And they will at the ballot box. Doesn't mean every last made up statistic and exaggerated fantasy has to be given equal weight.
Sure they do. Doesn't make those opinions right, in our best interests or even in some cases, palatable mind.
Generally they get called racists or xenophobes when they say something racist or xenophobic. If they didn't say nasty stupid shit they wouldn't get pulled up on it would they. Foot in mouth dissease is sadly prevelant among the most outspoken advocates of Leave.
jk
> Belittling people who have passionate views about EU corruption, embezzlement, lack of audit for 22 years etc etc is extremely stupid as well as snobbish. The trouble is NOT thinking about the issues rationally and simply indulging in personal attacks and insulting people of one persuasion or another.
https://fullfact.org/europe/did-auditors-sign-eu-budget/ TLDR: The books are audited and signed off by the ECA from 2007 to 2014. In 2014 There are ~4.4% of payments in some kind of error, this is not synonymous with waste or fraud.
> That is highly prejudicial because in a democracy everyone deserves their say.
And they will at the ballot box. Doesn't mean every last made up statistic and exaggerated fantasy has to be given equal weight.
> The main brexiteers as you call them have very strong and valid opinions.
Sure they do. Doesn't make those opinions right, in our best interests or even in some cases, palatable mind.
> They used to be called dinosaurs, xenophobes and racists due to the fear factor of the establishment. Anyone doing that now is disabusing the democratic process.
Generally they get called racists or xenophobes when they say something racist or xenophobic. If they didn't say nasty stupid shit they wouldn't get pulled up on it would they. Foot in mouth dissease is sadly prevelant among the most outspoken advocates of Leave.
jk
Post edited at 21:31
5
2
In reply to Pekkie:
meh. I'm disappointed. With that title, I had expected a Sunday Night Drinking Thread.
Make mine a Balvenie 21y please. And just one. Some Brain cells should remain for the start of the week.
meh. I'm disappointed. With that title, I had expected a Sunday Night Drinking Thread.
Make mine a Balvenie 21y please. And just one. Some Brain cells should remain for the start of the week.
In reply to Babika:
Obviously no one said "77 million Islamic rapists are coming from Turley", but Nigel Farage has been playing the migrant rapist card left right and center (well, mostly right.) Horrible man.
> Can you point me to the individual who has publicly said this?
Obviously no one said "77 million Islamic rapists are coming from Turley", but Nigel Farage has been playing the migrant rapist card left right and center (well, mostly right.) Horrible man.
4
4
In reply to Donald82:
We were talking about who has been generating the most fear.
So wild statements on UKC (that no one on the Leave side has actually said) rather prove my point about the Remain side winning the competition of scaremongering bollox
We were talking about who has been generating the most fear.
So wild statements on UKC (that no one on the Leave side has actually said) rather prove my point about the Remain side winning the competition of scaremongering bollox
4
1
In reply to Babika:
Someone points out some of the horrible things leave have said and implied. They did so with a statement that clearly wasn't supposed to be taken literally, and all you can say is, in effect, "who said that exactly". Farage has gone on about migrant rapists, and migrants having aids. You won't condemn that? Says it all really.
I said above I wasn't calling anyone on here a bigot.... Looks like I was maybe being a bit generous.
Someone points out some of the horrible things leave have said and implied. They did so with a statement that clearly wasn't supposed to be taken literally, and all you can say is, in effect, "who said that exactly". Farage has gone on about migrant rapists, and migrants having aids. You won't condemn that? Says it all really.
I said above I wasn't calling anyone on here a bigot.... Looks like I was maybe being a bit generous.
2
2
In reply to Pekkie:
Remember we were talking about Cornwall and EU funding mate?
Remember we were talking about Cornwall and EU funding mate?
> There is no doubt that Cornwall comes out financially ahead with the EU. The other question, though, is what benefits the subsidies provide.
> When auditors recently examined the grant money flowing into the region, they arrived at a disappointing conclusion: The program has fallen short of all of its benchmarks. Instead of creating over 15,000 jobs, it has only managed around 5,000; and instead of generating 500 million pounds in investments from the private sector, it only has realized just under 80 million pounds. Where jobs were created, they cost more than comparable jobs in the public sector. This was "poor value for money," as the authors wrote.
In reply to jkarran:
Really?
From that "Ultra Hard Right magazine*" The Grauniad.
* © RomTheBear.
> Generally they get called racists or xenophobes when they say something racist or xenophobic. If they didn't say nasty stupid shit they wouldn't get pulled up on it would they. Foot in mouth dissease is sadly prevelant among the most outspoken advocates of Leave.
Really?
> Over the past 30 years there has been a sustained attack on working-class people, their identities, their work and their culture by Westminster politics and the media bubble around it. Consequently they have stopped listening to politicians and to Westminster and they are doing what every politician fears: they are using their own experiences in judging what is working for and against them.
> In the last few weeks of the campaign the rhetoric has ramped up and the blame game started. If we leave the EU it will be the fault of the “stupid”, “ignorant”, and “racist” working class. Whenever working-class people have tried to talk about the effects of immigration on their lives, shouting “backward” and “racist” has become a middle-class pastime.
> Working-class people in the UK can see a possibility that something might change for them if they vote to leave the EU. The women in east London and the men in the mining towns all tell me the worst thing is that things stay the same. The referendum has become a way in which they can have their say, and they are saying collectively that their lives have been better than they are today. And they are right. Shouting “racist” and “ignorant” at them louder and louder will not work – they have stopped listening.
> For them, talking about immigration and being afraid of immigration is about the precarity of being working class, when people’s basic needs are no longer secure and they want change. The referendum has opened up a chasm of inequality in the UK and the monsters of a deeply divided and unfair society are crawling out. They will not easily go away no matter what the referendum result.
From that "Ultra Hard Right magazine*" The Grauniad.
* © RomTheBear.
3
In reply to Babika:
Really?
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/may/21/vote-leave-prejudice-turkey...
Not just scaremongering, lies.
On the economy, 8 years ago the national debt shot up because of a financial crisis...... modern economies are precarious, and this is the kind of policy change which could cause significant damage. I have respect for leavers who acknowledge this risk.... I don't think its wise to just laugh it off.
> As opposed to the daily utterings from Call me Dave etc that house prices will go up 18%, pensions will not be safe, NHS spending can't be assured and the end of the world is generally nigh.
> I think I know who is hell bent on generating the most fear
Really?
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/may/21/vote-leave-prejudice-turkey...
Not just scaremongering, lies.
On the economy, 8 years ago the national debt shot up because of a financial crisis...... modern economies are precarious, and this is the kind of policy change which could cause significant damage. I have respect for leavers who acknowledge this risk.... I don't think its wise to just laugh it off.
In reply to Babika:
"A dossier of murders and rapes committed by 50 EU criminals in Britain has been published by a leading out campaign, in a move described by critics as scaremongering of the worst kind"
Falling house prices vs rape and murder. I'm sorry but if you think falling house prices is the scarier prospect you need to reconsider your priorities.
> Can you point me to the individual who has publicly said this? Apart from you, that is?
> As opposed to the daily utterings from Call me Dave etc that house prices will go up 18%,
> I think I know who is hell bent on generating the most fear
"A dossier of murders and rapes committed by 50 EU criminals in Britain has been published by a leading out campaign, in a move described by critics as scaremongering of the worst kind"
Falling house prices vs rape and murder. I'm sorry but if you think falling house prices is the scarier prospect you need to reconsider your priorities.
Post edited at 19:41
In reply to Pekkie:
These charts speak for themselves mainly, so I won't comment:
http://www.gordonstainforthbelper.co.uk/pdfs/EU-Remain-Educationetc.pdf
These charts speak for themselves mainly, so I won't comment:
http://www.gordonstainforthbelper.co.uk/pdfs/EU-Remain-Educationetc.pdf
1
In reply to FreshSlate:
I'm still not sure exactly which Leave campaigner has said this (apart from you)?
Sounds a bit hateful and scaremongering and I don't think you should quote it unless you have actual evidence. The quote about 50 criminals isn't attributed - and even if it is, 50 is a bit different to 77million.
Peace, and all that...
> Well there's fear mongering with economic projections and there's saying a mob of 77 million islamic extremist rapists are waiting to come in from Turkey.
I'm still not sure exactly which Leave campaigner has said this (apart from you)?
Sounds a bit hateful and scaremongering and I don't think you should quote it unless you have actual evidence. The quote about 50 criminals isn't attributed - and even if it is, 50 is a bit different to 77million.
Peace, and all that...
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
That seems about as clear as it ever could be. I'm just surprised they could find UKIP supporters to plot the right hand side of the graph!
That seems about as clear as it ever could be. I'm just surprised they could find UKIP supporters to plot the right hand side of the graph!
In reply to Babika:
It's not a quote it's a dossier released by vote leave.
http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/vote_leave_reveals_50_criminals_the_eu_...
That's their own website, if anything a dossier release is a calculated move that's been signed off. Even quotes aren't as concrete evidence of a deliberate scaremongering tactic as that.
Exactly.
> Sounds a bit hateful and scaremongering and I don't think you should quote it unless you have actual evidence. The quote about 50 criminals isn't attributed
It's not a quote it's a dossier released by vote leave.
http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/vote_leave_reveals_50_criminals_the_eu_...
That's their own website, if anything a dossier release is a calculated move that's been signed off. Even quotes aren't as concrete evidence of a deliberate scaremongering tactic as that.
> 50 is a bit different to 77million
Exactly.
Post edited at 22:58
1
1
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
Is it not a bit sinister for YouGov to publish statistics suggesting Leave voters have lower intelligence ?
They wouldn't suggest racial groups that have lower intelligence.
How about Labour / Conservative ? If Conservatives had more qualifications on average would you conclude they were more intelligent ?
Is it not a bit sinister for YouGov to publish statistics suggesting Leave voters have lower intelligence ?
They wouldn't suggest racial groups that have lower intelligence.
How about Labour / Conservative ? If Conservatives had more qualifications on average would you conclude they were more intelligent ?
1
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Loading Notifications...