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.
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.
The problem is how do you have free trade if there is 26 different regulations on everything from the permitted additives to food, to what efficiency standards electrical products must meet.
In the end if it where not for the EU we would have a bunch of civil servants in Whitehall issuing very similar regulations to that which come out of Brussels. Now I admit we have had to change a whole bunch of regulations over the last 30 years as these have been harmonized, but we have been through 99% of that pain so why throw it out now for something that has already passed?
On this matter you have to ask yourself is it better to have a single set of regulations covering a much larger market or a minefield of regulations from 26 countries that it may well be impossible to comply with?
The other question to ask is are the sorts of free trade agreements that you might want with the EU available outside the EU without implementing all the regulations anyway? Clearly looking at countries in Europe outside the EU that is a big fat no.
I also fail to understand how the working time directive is the agenda of the 1%. Surely the 1% would like to see us work unrestricted hours like a bunch of good little wage slaves? I also wonder how abolition of roaming charges is the interests of the 1% either.
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.
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.
I also fail to understand how the working time directive is the agenda of the 1%. Surely the 1% would like to see us work unrestricted hours like a bunch of good little wage slaves?
The big supporters of brexit do seem to favour narrow interests. You just need to consider the ownership of the newspapers that most loudly proclaim how bad the EU is, to see that brexit is what the 1% want.
When it come to science it's not just movement that helps. Higher education establishment research funding from EU is 15% on top of what UK government gives and that would disappear after brexit. Ah, say brexit supporters, but if we didn't contribute to the EU then there would be more government money. Hah!, retorts any intelligent person who has paid attention to what this government is doing, the additional money will go into the pockets of a select few and not be spent on anything as frivolous as scientific research in establishments where a kid from a council estate could attend.
The piece of information that you are missing is that the UK has already gutted its internal research funding. The UK government is not going to suddenly become more friendly to science funding even if the need to pay the EU goes away. As far as I know, one of the few good sources of academic research funding in the UK currently is from the EU.
Problem is that the funding via the EU probably goes where it is needed. If the government didn't have EU contributions then they wouldn't give more to science funding and you're deluded if you think that it might. They also wouldn't use it to end austerity or increase NHS funding or anything that might be of benefit to the majority of people. It will be used to line the pockets of a select few and nothing more.