Slashdot Mirror
Stephen Hawking and 150 Royal Society Scientists: Brexit Disaster For UK (telegraph.co.uk)
cold fjord writes: Steven Hawking, 150 fellows of the Royal Society (three Nobel laureates among them), and the Astronomer Royal, are warning that exit from the EU by the UK could be a disaster for science in the UK. An immediate issue would be restrictions on travel and how that would result in scientists from around the EU no longer coming to the UK to work. That would make the UK less competitive for new talent. It would also mean that scientists in the EU with grant money would be less likely to bring their research and grant money to the UK to perform their work. Switzerland is listed as an example of the resulting harm. The scientists make the point that freedom of travel for scientists is as important for science as free trade is for economies.
FFS.
New boss same as old boss.
So balance that out with some incentives to lure talent and research to the UK. The EU will never have the political will to get its act together and the UK similarly will not have the will to deal with the migrant crisis that will continue as long as they maintain open borders.
There are no "restrictions on travel" into or out of the UK, otherwise we wouldn't have hundreds of thousands of unwanted, third world invaders coming into the country every year.
Secondly, appeal to authority fallacy much? Who cares what Stephen Hawkins thinks about the real world? He is totally divorced from reality (not his fault, but it's a fact nevertheless). How many times does he have to go down a street at night, in an 'enriched' area, and worry about being mugged or raped?
Stephen Hawking's computerized voice has an American accent.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Dectalk II lives.
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
That's not the point anyway.
Achille Talon
Hop!
Secondly, appeal to authority fallacy much? Who cares what Stephen Hawkins thinks about the real world? He is totally divorced from reality (not his fault, but it's a fact nevertheless). How many times does he have to go down a street at night, in an 'enriched' area, and worry about being mugged or raped?
Well given that he is paralyzed, I imagine even a small child wielding a pillow could kill him quite easily. So why don't you ask him what it's like going down any street at any time of the day, in any area, and having to worry about being mugged or raped or killed by anyone who isn't also in a wheelchair.
I don't get it. What prevents UK from letting in whoever they want without being in the EU? A sovereign country should be able to decide that they want to let in all the scientists they want from EU and beyond on already existing rules. Or am I missing something?
From the link The two are intricately linked: if science were not a public good then there should be no tax subsidy to it. If it is a public good then it doesn’t matter who does it nor where. It’s not possible to then claim that it must have the subsidy and it must be done in Britain or by Britons. The one point precludes the other.
It makes the assumption that if science can be done anywhere then it doesn't matter where. The article totally misses that science is a collaborative field that works by communication and working with differing mind sets. Travel makes this much easier.
I think the article is just looking for an excuse to make some ink, and has no real thought behind it.
UK citizens totally missing the point about the reason of the existence of the EU, yet yearly thousand of brits visit flanders' fields
Pfft, I can still use my arms even though im in a wheelchair, hawking is as good as dead!
The UKs involvement in the EU should be a free trade agreement. Full stop. End of discussion.
No central control, no central laws.
The EU is an evil cabal filled with unaccountable corruption pushing the agenda of the 1%..
Guess Tim Worstall (the Forbes article author) never heard of patents.
There's lots of comments on Reddit and elsewhere decrying the potential loss of EU funding for science and a multitude of other projects in the event of Brexit.
What people seem oblivious to is where this money comes from. Governments collect money from taxpayers, which hands it over to Brussels who then take a huge cut to fund the European Commission, the EU Parliament and all of its trappings. Estimates I've seen is a 50% cut just to fund the body that does the funding.
Surely Science would benefit more if they cut out the (extremely bloated) middleman and was funded directly by government?
For all intensive porpoises your a bunch of rediculous loosers
Forbes blocks people using ad-blockers, and back in early January, there was an article about receiving "gifts" in the form of malvertising when one disables their ad-blocker to access their site.
There are other sites which are less hostile to those who value security. Link to those.
Why should anyone listen to these guys in particular? They don't have any special insight into the lives of the average citizen. You could also ask groups of TV celebrities, or church leaders, or sports stars, or CEOs -- but why would you listen to them either?
Do scientists care about our opinions? How much? Why should we care about their opinions more than they care about ours?
That would be the best possible outcome for scientific collaboration.
Brexit is a fad. It's even a FUD. It's all about the people not feeling they're getting the benefits out of what they'd hoped EU would be. I understand UK perfectly, they're on the giving end of EU, they're the ones that have to take the fall for Europes refugees (pretty much like Sweden, but on a bigger scale) and they're the ones with the most generous benefit rules and regulations. The thing is...that's not EU's fault, that's Britain on Benefits Fault, not EU as such. Cameron is right.
UK is important, very important, unfortunately they're not treated as such per generosity, so they need to do this to set an example. I hope you follow me so far. I'm in Sweden (but born Norwegian as if it had anything to do with it)...
What this world is coming to - is for you and me to decide.
from Worstall. Yes, science's products are a public good, but doing science is not that same as having access to the results. Otherwise a lot of countries would be benefitting significantly from it which clearly are not. Just having scientists coming from other places and scientists returning from other places and live in the UK has a huge intangible benefit. Reading about an idea from elsewhere isn't at all the same as working with a person who hatched or worked with those who hatched the idea elsewhere.
Worstall is just a Brexiter trying to support what he wants with shallow, faulty arguments that he thinks will fool a lot of people. Don't be one of them. Why do I have a strong reaction to him? Because he sounds so much like some nutcases in the US who spew faulty arguments hoping to mislead or at least confuse the masses.
I'll bet the estates these folks live on are nowhere near any North African ghettos. The 'Disaster' is upon us. Some of us.
Is the ship sinking? Then it doesn't matter who calls you a rat: Not going down with the ship is the better choice.
Worse. some of those drugs come from socialized medicine!
Secondly, appeal to authority fallacy much? Who cares what Stephen Hawkins thinks about the real world? He is totally divorced from reality (not his fault, but it's a fact nevertheless). How many times does he have to go down a street at night, in an 'enriched' area, and worry about being mugged or raped?
The Brexit discussion is far older then the migrant crisis, and is only barely related. It's about Britain wanting to remain a sovereign state. 150 successful scientists who have effectively worked for the government their whole lives support a stronger, larger central government? Hey, they're all smart guys, they know how the money flows in their field. But they're perhaps not in touch with the average guy upset that the government he votes for doesn't seem to represent him much. The migrant crisis is just the latest example of that. The more local the government, the more responsive it tends to be.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Well, Britannia has been an unwanted invader for a very long time, this is the price they have to pay for that.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
Don't ask a scientist about politics. You will usually be disappointed. Anyway, if Stephen Hawking's so smart, why ain't he rich? Trump 2016.
You are welcome on my lawn.
I don't remember the EU being so neccessary for Hawking breakthrough. Nor for Francis Crick et al's (DNA structure), nor for so many others. The EU is a big cow of money, very true. I rather not have that cow if britons can make our own laws (nobody within the EU can).
Yeah, imagine having to present a passport to get into and out of a country! Soon the UK will be a scientific backwater like the US!
(a) Stephen Hawking is an expert on Black holes - The EU IS a black hole
(b) Black holes gobble-up everything that gets too close to them - The EU is gobbling up everything in Europe, and is looking at the periphery of Europe
(c) Black holes are God's engines of destruction - The EU is an engine of destruction for international bankers, who think themselves Gods.
(d) Black holes have unlimited appetites - The EU has an unlimited appetite for taxes and control
(e) Nothing can escape a Black Hole - People like Hawking are trying to make sure nobody can escape the EU
and finally, a citizen of the UK (Hawking) demonstrated that a form of radiation could escape a Black Hole - it seems appropriate that the people of the UK are on the cusp of proving whether the UK can escape the EU...
The USA is not part of the EU and our scientists don't seem to have a problem traveling to and from the UK (with the exception of cost). Why would it be different for an EU country unless one is assuming that the other EU countries will make it difficult out of retaliation. But, that has as much potential to harm them as it would the UK.
I have great respect for Hawkings and the scientific community, but their expertise is in the various scientific fields they represent, not geo-politics or other areas they like to delve into (like meta-physics and theology). Yes, they are smart, but simply being smart does not make one correct in fields they are not experts in.
As for the retaliation, we won't know if that would be the case until the UK actually left the EU. Kind of like the status of a certain cat in a box.
The "halo effect" makes it disturbingly difficult to asses a person's complete abilities accurately. Because Hawking is a leading physicist, an extremely articulate and well-loved communicator, and a very brave and determined person, we are tempted to believe that he is godlike in every way. But remember that superb ability in one field - such as theoretical physics - does tend to come at the expense of broad experience in other fields, if only because one person only has a given amount of time and attention. I think it very likely that Professor Hawking does not spend much time learning about EU politics. Hence he may still take an idealistic view of the EU project - much as I did from about 1970-2000. If it could be done properly, it would be a good thing. But as it is being done very badly - and, I suspect, deliberately so - we must get out while we can. It's not a luxury hotel, but a "roach motel".
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
Secondly, appeal to authority fallacy much? Who cares what Stephen Hawkins thinks about the real world? He is totally divorced from reality (not his fault, but it's a fact nevertheless). How many times does he have to go down a street at night, in an 'enriched' area, and worry about being mugged or raped?
Hawking is talking about the the effect on science and research. Being one of them, he probably knows a good more about this particular subject that most; he will have had to work with international colleagues, taking part in programmes set up and funded by diverse international bodies etc. Hell. even I know enough about these things to feel that he isn't speaking out of turn, not by a mile.
As for your comment about 'enriched' areas - what do you actually know about that? The most dangerous areas in UK to walk out at night are normally in the socially deprived estates in some of the English cities, where contrary to your insinuations, most of the residents are ethnically British, who live on state benefits. I speak with some authority, I think - I live in an area of London with a very high proportion of immigrants: Hindus, Sikhs, Polish, Chinese, Muslims. I love it - it is a nice and safe area where people are consderate neighbours. So, you can stop your scaremongering.
"If the UK leaves the EU and there is a loss of freedom of movement of scientists between the UK and Europe it will be a disaster for UK science and universities."
Exiting the EU does nothing. The thing that the authors are worried about, is that after the UK leaves the EU, some additional changes will be made.
"An immediate issue would be restrictions on travel" What are they talking about? Being in EU is not a requirement to be part of the Schengen Area, see Norway.
In fact the idiotic and completely unscientific and illogical way EU manages its economies is the right way to hell driving countries to economic despair while effectively cutting them off from Schengen while they are still EU members, see Greece.
And what people don't know is, that Netherlands, or rather, citizens of Netherlands are paying the highest (per capita) price for EU membership, not UK and the likes.
Now, there is a clear discrepancy in EU (especially Germany + France) vision of the future of EU.
Continental Europe tends to be pro tighter integration.
UK does everything to stop it.
On top of it, scolding EU has become a norm among mainstream UK politicians.
The real "loss" for UK, if you ask me, would be exactly that: no way to influence EU integration processes.
Whenever I read those stories about how powerful Japanese executives say they would pull their investments out of the UK if it left the EU, I aways want to ask them - if a small offshore isaland nation is so unviable - when Japan plans to become a province of China.
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
I will just say that the UK is becoming less attractive for "continental" Europeans, and I think the UK economy will be hurt if it leaves the EU, but at the same time other countries, like Ireland, France and Germany, suddenly become more attractive.
Hawking opining on a political structure is pretty much the same as talented musician opining on a Standard Model changes. Both are not competent outside their area of expertise.
If you look into the history, the only thing that is constant is the fact that political and economic alliances are formed and later dismantled.
Really, who has Britain invaded since WWII? Iraq? Errr...maybe you believe Iraq is in the EU?
Uhm no cupcake, that's what the discussion is about. They don't have to pay the price. They may chose to pay the price; we'll see.
Further proof that "science" has ceased to involve the scientific method.
Most people know Dwight D. Eisenhower for his speech on the military-industrial complex. Its a tragedy that most people just know a sound-bite or two of the speech, however. This epic speech not only warn of the dangers of a military-industrial complex, but also of a scientific technological elite.
A excerpt:
Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.
In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.
"His name was James Damore."
Who hasn't been an invader at anytime of his history anyway? All the people still alive today are from communities which at some point in time did invade a neighbor. Some were just more successful at that than others. If it weren't the Brits it would have been someone else anyway. As soon as resources are available due to some weakness of the owner the table is set for an invasion. We are just a bit more sophisticated at that today and are trying to secure them without too much war and without actual occupation of the territory.
Achille Talon
Hop!
That "since WW2" makes the things far too easy. Brits have fucked up the whole middle east in first place.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
Who cares what Stephen Hawkins thinks about the real world?
Stephen Hawking. Weird how you anti-forrin types always have the same anti-intellectual attitudes. Bring on the stupid. If I wasn't unfortunate enough to live in one of your war conquests, I would fully support you dickheads leaving the EU just to enjoy the fireworks. Leaving the EU will make the UK irrelevant.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
You're still in Ireland. Fuck off out of Ireland when you're fucking off out of the EU. Take those knuckle dragging bible bashing dickhead unionists with you. Go and quietly be irrelevant somewhere we don't have to listen to your endless fucking whinging.
Why would you want to ask them that? Do you want them to think you actually consider that equivalent? I'd say you did the right thing by not asking.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
So, you can stop your scaremongering.
That won't be happening. But you can see the tone of the EU exit argument. The opinions of scientists are not welcome.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
On a map of regions Britain has never invaded ... there are three tiny spots, representing around 0.001% of the surface of the planet.
Considering there is basically nobody who hasn't at some point been invaded *by* Britain (and heard it was justified by the British claim to ancestral superiority) there is basically nobody who doesn't have the right to now go live in Britain peacefully. Calling migration and refugees an "invasion" is a ridiculous hyperboly for a nation whose historical approach to those things consisted largely of showing up with lots of guns and saying "All this land and resources you people have relied on to survive for millions of years... yeah, we'll be taking that. If you shut up and play nice we will let some of you live".
That is an invasion and no nation on earth has done it better or more frequently than the British. The Roman empire was tiny compared to the what the Brits have invaded, Genghiz Kahn managed a fraction of it. Nah, this is no invasion - this is people fleeing for their lives and seeking a place they can safely raise their kids without the constant threat of them being dead tomorrow.
And if every a nation has forfeited it's right to exist by virtue of how many other nations it destroyed it's the British - so shut up and help these people and be grateful that's *all* you are being asked to do.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Since UK has border controls now....even for EU citizens. And since immigration rules can say "Immediately approve any scientist who wants to come and work in Britain" I don't see the issue, no.
It's about the impossible dream of total sovereignty. If we ditch the EU we will just end up being forced to adopt its rules, and more US rules, and do what China wants. Look how international trade agreements screw individual countries.
We will have more power and control if we engage with Europe and steer the EU. Like Germany does.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
And what does figures about black British criminals have to do with immigrant Hindus, Sikhs, Polish, Chinese and Muslims?
Nothing unless you're thick enough to divide people into two categories; "White, therefore not immigrant" and "Not White, therefore immigrant".
You're not that thick, are you?
If you actually look at the figures they even disprove your stupid argument. Only 11% of suspects were Asian. That's a category with a large number of Hindus, Sikhs, Chinese and Muslims.
I take it back, you are that thick.
If Britain drops the EU, then they can become a Schengen country (if the others agree) or adopt Schengen like rules and make agreements as needed. Add that to custom tailored rules that incentivize the talent they need and want coming to Britain and they could adopt rules like Australia with benefits for those immigrating with needed skillets and "discouraging" others from permanent immigration. The EU is not the pinnacle of European governmental success. It is an experiment with socialism on a wide scale in many aspects and has adversely affected the more prosperous countries that are well managed. Much like some divisions of a company that constantly lose money, but have the prestige of public presence (aka, Greece and promotion of Greek tourism), the company would benefit from propping up these divisions until they look attractive then spinning them off.
- Tjp
I am in wallow with my inner money grubbing capitalistic pig. ... Oink!
Someone should talk to Hawking's ex-wife about his change of opinion regarding exiting unions.
Wat?
You're refuting somebody refuting somebody's migrant hysteria by providing data about some unrelated demographic?
You're going to have to do better than that to convince anybody except yourself.
Not sure why you'd have to adopt EU rules. Canada, in general, hasn't adopted US rules and we're not only attached to them, but they are the largest trading partner by far. While the rules tend to end up similar, that's just because in the end the rules tend to make sense for everyone, but we don't just go the US and ask them to give us new rules. I can think of several examples when it comes to trade: FMVSS vs CMVSS, UL vs CSA, size of peanut butter, driver's licenses, immigration, entry/exit requirements, taxation, workplace safety, firearms, even the basic way law is performed (Quebec uses civil law, elsewhere uses common law). Yet everything works out just fine.
Why would the UK adopt EU rules? Makes no sense.
Of course, Canada has no power over the USA when it comes to law. And I'm not just fine with that, I think that it's very important every country stick to its own soil.
You're one of the strongest supporters of more centralized government power on Slashdot. Every thread I've seen you in vaguely related to politics or the economy, your answer is "more government power" regardless of the question.
Do you think it's even possible that the UK could get all the benefits it's going to from trade agreements, without having to concede power to the EU government on everything else? Or is that a bad question for you - do you see the UK benefiting in all ways from letting the EC become its federal government? Do you think the EU overall should become a single nation with a strong federal government and token state governments,like the US?
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
would be as good or better a world citizen as a sovereign nation as they would in the undemocratic EU fold. Business and scientific travel will not be problematic. It isn't between the US and Great Britain, why should it be with the continent? The plus side is they regain control of their borders and immigration policy. Since the EU has none beyond national suicide, why should they complain? I assume they will miss The Queen's deep pockets, and large military.
The euro is the primary cause of Europe's economic woes. It allows Germany to act in old-school mercantilist manner and beggar its neighbors. Floating currency exchange is needed by nations to protect themselves against trade deficits literally sucking money out of them, with the inability to compensate because they've given up one of the most powerful policy tools of a sovereign: control over their own money supply. Ordinary Germans do not really benefit either, as the nation's trade surplus is not driven only by efficiency, but also by internal wage suppression. You cannot have an effective and stable monetary union without also having an economic and fiscal union, and that can never work across Europe's heterogenous cultural and political patchwork, despite the megalomeniacal fantasies of creepy old men like Juncker, Schäuble, etc. http://www.spectator.co.uk/201...
"Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
The UK won't be able to get a free trade deal without agreeing at all the rules, that it will then have no say in. Like Norway.
The point of free trade is to remove barriers to trade. Not just tariffs. Regulations are harmonised so that products made in one country can be sold in another. One side can't gain unfair advantage by, say, removing employee protections.
Look at Switzerland. They wanted free trade on financial products. The EU said "accept all our rules, or no deal". Switzerland declined and can't sell financial services to the EU freely. Do you really think Germany, which is trying to build Frankfurt up into a financial centre, will just give London a free pass to opt out of EU rules and gain an advantage? Of course not.
The answer is less government. Get rid of many national rules and standardise on one standard that applies everywhere. I buy stuff from Amazon France and Amazon Germany, because the tax situation, the warranty situation and the support situation is all harmonised and easy to use.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Furthermore, the luminaries are commonly the people that get the funding while it's the transient population of postdocs and postgrads who do most of the novel science. Hawking is unusual in that he is still directly involved in research. That population of researchers who typically are forced to move institute or country every two to three years will be hurt by loss of EU integration and funding. It means more having the tenured guys standing up for it, because they're not the ones who suffer most.
But even if it were true, they're doing jobs and getting paid for those jobs and people are employing them. Why not blame the employers for going for the cheapest labour?
And when the come over here, you whine about them living off welfare, which means no job, but you whine about them taking all the jobs and living 20 to a four-bed flat sending the money home, working for little pay. Which means they have a job.
See a problem?
We're doing pretty good outside of the EU, thank you very much. 100'000 EU-immigrants every year to our country prove the point.
Well they've got nothing to lose, have they? I mean how often do you see VWs, Audis, Mercs and BMWs on Britain's roads?
>freedom of travel for scientists is as important for science as free trade is for economies.
Nonsense, ever hear of a thing called the internet?!
Most linux users don't know this, but the man pages were named after Chuck Norris. Chuck Norris fsck'ing hates noobs!
UK has to choose now (since 1973):
- full EU member (not that shy miss);
- US colony;
- Chinese province.
Switzerland be outside the EU, and at the same time have the highest per-capita GDP in the western world
While technically Switzerland isn't part of the E.U., the country does regularly sign bilateral treaties with the E.U. so it more or less functions as "honorary member".
e.g.:
- we also signed the Schengen treaty about freedom of circulation with the EU. So you can cross border between CH and EU as easily as within EU-member state.
(Well, that used to be the case, until France decided to go in state of emergency mode following last terror attack and thus control nearly everybody at its border.
And until Switzerland voted a stupid law to be able to limit its immigration in case of emergency).
- we signed bunch of other treaties (Dublin, etc.)
So in practice we just happen to not have EURO but still Swiss francs, and each time a new policy is started in the EU, we must independently sign a treaty with the EU.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
You appear to be one of those people who believe that the wrongs of our ancestors must be paid for by those living today and in perpetuiity. Moron.
I don't ask economics experts for astrophysics reviews (because they don't know about astrophysics).
I don't ask astrophysics experts for economics reviews (because they don't know about economics).
Basic fallacy, being expert at A does not make one expert in all fields B. Are we really succumbing to this kind of thing on ./?
It's a logical fallacy to claim that the only options are [1] free trade with unified international rules pushed by armies of bureaucrats, or [2] no free trade.
There are MANY other options, although admittedly they involve more freedom and fewer government bureaucrats with lifetime employment telling other people how to live. Here's just ONE option: Free trade with each product fully-described on its packaging or on a website. In this scheme, the manufacturer only needs to disclose what's in the food he is selling (one example) and individual human consumers are entrusted to be responsible and make their own decisions about what they are (or are not) willing to buy and eat. Liberty. Imagine it. People who are not harming their neighbors ought to be left to live their lives. It should not be the automatic default position that government minders (who themselves are just human beings and therefore presumably cannot be trusted to run their OWN lives) are required to run everybody's life.
Yawn, not this idiotic line of thinking again. "Someone did something bad to someone in the past, so now completely different groups of people get to perform an injustice to people who had nothing to do with it."
If that's your idea of righting a wrong, you're a sick, twisted, little fiend.
I love it - it is a nice and safe area where people are consderate neighbours
Pffft, if you're going to lie, at least come up with something remotely plausible.
What colour are North African immigrants, typically? What religion are they, typically?
Nobody mentions "Asian" and means Indians. Don't be thick.
the immense power that the Saudis hold is not JUST their oil production capacity and reserves, it's the fact that they can decide in what currency it must be traded. ... ... follow the money :)
there is obvious benefit to them to insist this be the petrodollar, because of the blind eye that the American Regime turn to their crimes
You obviously have no idea how many US dollars flow into Canadian politics.
In Capitalist US, the commerce controls the Government.
"they're the ones that have to take the fall for Europes refugees " care to back that up with statistic ? Because all source I have got cite europe refugee highest number as germany, hungary, greece, heck even Sweden is mentionned, UK is not even mentioned. How the heck would they arrive in UK anyway ?
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Farage is that you? Ignorance is bliss for you. if we didn't have those immigrant workers, you wouldn't have any fruit or vegetables from the UK as the Brits who used to do it are too lazy to get up to start work at 5:00am. if the Brits did the hard graft jobs then the immigrant workers would not be needed. you wouldn't have enough nurses or doctors either.
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
its the usual where the local ignorant population think they are better than foreigners, its the pricks that go on holiday to places like Spain and insist only eating english breakfasts and roasts because they won't eat that "foreign muck".
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
what is meant by rules, if you want to sell products into the EU, you need to apply the minimum quality and safety standards that the EU sets. They sensibly don't want you to sell dangerous products in the EU.
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
it'll be up to the Brits, especially the ones that want out, to stop their hypocrisy of buying foreign built goods then claiming they are patriotic and getting out of EU is better for UK. Farage is one of the biggest example of a hypocrite, he claims to support british workers then buys a swedish car.
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
to a degree its blaming the now for the past but we do have a responsibility for the crap we did in Iraq etc because it reverberates around the whole region. The only justifiable thing we did in the middle east was get Saddam out of Kuiwait.
All the Brexit'ers are either still living the colonial past, living in 1930's nationalist europe and have Arian race ideals (no-one is as good as us english) or are xenophobes and/or racists.
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
Its sensible to me that if they can't get tariff free access to the rest of europe then they will want to move their companies to mainland europe.
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
you sound like an ignorant racist - are you are member of EDL?
we have a large british born black population, not all black people are immigrants. anyway most north africans go to france/belgium because most of north africa's second language is french
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
Note: I am not the grand parent poster.
Sounds like the UK needs to look at fixing it's educational system, health services to deal with these issues.
I don't know about 'need', it maybe the case now due to the influx of immigrants coming into the country that were doing a lot of the hard work much cheaper than British people would do at the time and then instilled a culture of laziness. However, I think with the right programmes, these issues, if they really do exist, could be solved. I live in Northern Ireland currently (which is part of the UK) and what I see here is different. I encounter many hard working British people (particularly in skilled work), however they all seem to be working hard to move out of the UK and move to the USA, Japan, Hong Kong etc. The immigrants here seem to be taking up a lot of the unskilled work, none of which seems that demanding.
My company is really seeking very hard skilled individuals, particularly those that have system/network administration and devops experience/knowledge, even if a good portion of that is hobby work and so on.
The British people that have these skill sets typically are scrambling to move out of Northern Ireland. We don't really find any immigrants with the experience, passion or knowledge.
You know, I get fedup of this bullshit racism you guys keep portraying against the British.
Britain wants foreigners, Britain doesn't want the free movement of people. 99% of people who do unskilled work isn't benefiting British society well, we can see that. We look at the potential and whether someone be needed if they're non-EU citizens, but EU citizens? There is no restrictions, so we get more of the people that are inducing problematic situations over the people we need.
If we were on an Australian point system for all immigrants, this would very much solve both issues. We wouldn't do racist actions like give free access to people with no restrictions and then discriminate against the rest by looking at their credentials. Every immigrant should be treated equally. The UK would get the people it needs and the people that cause problematic situations would be restricted, preventing social and political issues we have now.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
What's wrong with Iceland caused by these international trade agreements again?
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
Farage also claims to be pro-Europe, but not pro-European Union.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
It's possible to want to be a sovereign nation, to set your own laws, control your own borders and support your native workers and at the very same fucking time think that foreign trade is a tremendous thing and there should be a lot of it
These are not mutually exclusive concepts and indeed represent the exact approach during much of a very successful period in British history.
Because it was so hard to travel before the EU for PhDs? please, PhD's get handed visas and residency if they want it. The U.S. isn't in the EU either, but even undergrads ave no trouble working there.complete Marxism propaganda
Having England leave will just result in Scotland and Wales leaving the UK and rejoining the EU.
As we all know, most groundbreaking scientific thought has happened in Scotland. London is where ideas go to die.
i am british and i have no problem with open borders as it works both ways. when the Uk economy was crap in the 1970s, loads of brits went and found work in europe, now its time to return the favour. Once the eastern european countries come up to speed with their economies, a lot of the incomers will go home and then we will be pleading for immigrants to do the hard graft again. The unskilled work is not being done by the native british after the war and it hasn't been since so they allowed in loads of people from the carribean to make up the shortfall. We have had all the same arguments when they came over and the again when we took in a lot of asians from uganda. Its not done us any harm.
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
he claims a lot of things and most of the them wrong.
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
we have a sovereign nation and make our own laws, less than 20% are influenced by Europe and that is to do with harmonisation. I've not yet seen any of the european laws be something we wouldn't have enacted ourselves at some point (if we got some decent MPs with courage) . We do not support our native workers when we buy foreign produced things like BMWs and Volvos.
This "successful period of history" has happened since we have been in the EU, in 1970s when we were outside the EU, our economy was in the shit. Being in the EU has not stopped us from trading with anyone.
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
You cease to exist as an Independent Nation if you can't print your own currency http://www.radicalpress.com/?p=1389
Casteism
You can't read.
I used Britain's own history to show what "invasion" means - and contrasted this with what is happening now, not to say the one justifies the other - to prove the two things have absolujtely FUCK ALL in common.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
And yet the UK persists with First Past the Post that leaves more British citizens disenfranchised than they are when they place their European Parliament vote which is based on a form of proportional representation.
I fail to see how localism is served by EU exit when the EU grants more localised regions actual political representation than most citizens receive when they're not represented under FPTP.
If anything from what I can see see EU exit only serves one group of people - those who have already ensured that the British parliament is undemocratic often obtaining 100% of power with little more than 30% of the national vote. If anything the EU vote is about centralisation of power, making sure Westminster becomes an unchallenged bastion of power of which typically almost two thirds of the country have absolutely no say in.
It shouldn't be surprising that many of the same people supporting EU exit are the same people who are consistently against a more democratic UK having repeatedly blocked moves to a more proportional or fairer form of representation, who block reform of the Lords to make it democratic, who support single vested interest monopolisation of important sectors such as media and news, and who wholeheartedly defend political moves towards police state. They don't want more power for us, they want more power for them, they hate the EU because it's a major barrier in preventing the authoritarianism they so desire, because that's precisely what the EU (the then EC) was designed to do in the wake of World War II. When people like Farage say they'll quit and don't because they simply can't cope with loss of power one would think the sort of authorianism such Brexiters desire is obvious, but apparently some are still in absolutely love with the idea of it and are willing to support the March towards it.
The out argument would make sense if it was backed by a promise for healthy democracy in the UK, but it isn't, because it's about the exact opposite of that.
I'm just fucking glad I have my exit strategy sorted by way of a wife that has dual citizenship. I just hope everyone that's left behind is willing to live with what they've voted for and when the boomers succeed in kicking out everyone not British I hope they'll be happy cleaning out their own bed pans, because there'll be no one else left to do it for them.
we have a sovereign nation and make our own laws, less than 20% are influenced by Europe and that is to do with harmonisation
Bullshit. Cameron just went to Europe and begged to be allowed to impose our own constraints on who we give benefits to, and was told he's not allowed.
That is not sovereignty.
I've not yet seen any of the european laws be something we wouldn't have enacted ourselves at some point (if we got some decent MPs with courage) .
Freedom of movement laws are causing a lot of the current disquiet within and beyond the UK. The UK is not allowed to shut down our borders and impose controls on the movement of EU nationals, whether we want to or not.
We do not support our native workers when we buy foreign produced things like BMWs and Volvos.
We support them even less when we let foreign workers come into the UK and work for lower wages, supplemented by benefits. Even if you 'buy British' there's no guarantee anybody native to the islands will actually benefit.
This "successful period of history" has happened since we have been in the EU, in 1970s when we were outside the EU, our economy was in the shit.
Well done on finding the only decade in the past three centuries.
Being in the EU has not stopped us from trading with anyone.
Being outside of the EU would not stop us trading with anyone.
Incidentally, being in the EU has very explicitly prevented me from trading with someone. I used to buy my music legally on record company produced CDs from Hong Kong. The EU ruled that this damaged revenues within its borders and prevented that trade from occurring.
There are other examples..
Maybe you could provide better specifics on this matter?
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
I'm not old enough to remember things that went on in the 70s. That said, I do remember as a EU citizen being rejected in the 90s and early 2000s to live in some EU countries despite holding British and French passports (and I have lived at least half of my life outside of the UK) that were part of agreements. If I was to return the 'favour', it wouldn't be doing what I am suggesting right now, but a blatant 'no'. However, I'm not like that, I don't think we owe or they owe anything in particular, people should be treated with respect and sensible policies should be implemented.
I'm not seeing how the Australian point system is harmful, if the people are really necessary, they would get granted very easily access?
... People can't find homes due to over population, NHS wait times for simple blood tests in some places are now months, government trying to curtail benefits due to overload of the system.
I'm not saying immigrants don't bring some benefits too, but claiming there is no harm... Britain cannot keep up with the population growth which is mostly due to the result of uncontrolled migration and you say 'not done us any harm', are you really serious?
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
Nobody mentions "Asian" and means Indians.
Yes, they do.
Ah. I see. You're an American. Try not to use statistics from other countries when you don't understand the terminology used. You end up sounding thick.
What makes you say "deliberately so"? Genuine question.