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.
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.
Stephen Hawking's computerized voice has an American accent.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
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.
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
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.
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.
The UKs involvement in the EU should be a free trade agreement. Full stop. End of discussion.
No central control, no central laws.
Right, and free trade agreements are generally "if you do X, Y and Z then we'll trade with you under $RULES". Well contgratulations you've more or less reinvented the system you've tried to escape from, except that instead of having thins debated with the dubious openness of the EU parliament, you'll have them completely private and beholden to corporate interests like TTIP.
I mean suuuure, we don't have someone "imposing" rules on us, er... unless those are a condition of continuing to trade freely. Then we'll have the option of acquiescing or leaving, just like now.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
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.
" Why should we care about their opinions more than they care about ours?" err...because without a strong science environment, you can kiss any future economic growth in a very competitive world goodbye? Don't believe me, look at the Asian countries and how much they devote to science. They get it, and you won't.
"if Stephen Hawking's so smart, why ain't he rich?" If Trump is so smart, why ain't he a world-renown physicist?