Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Stephen Hawking and 150 Royal Society Scientists: Brexit Disaster For UK (telegraph.co.uk)

Posted by timothy on from the whereas-maintaining-a-monarchy dept.

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.

4 of 361 comments (clear)

  1. Incentives by butchersong · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Incentives by Archtech · · Score: 5, Informative

      Hussein made the mistake of attacking the USS Stark. Assad is still in business.

      I think that was the least of his sins. (And the events bore a disturbing resemblance to, for instance, the Gulf of Tonkin false flag incident which was used to justify US involvement in Vietnam).

      Far more important is that Saddam Hussein was planning to sell Iraqi oil for euros (and perhaps other currencies, or gold). All national governments have multiple overlapping goals and agendas - the current US government more than most, as it has unilaterally extended its sphere of influence and its interests worldwide.

      The pursuit of reliable, cheap sources of oil and gas is most certainly an important motive. Others include support for Israel ("ask not what Israel can do for you; ask rather what you can do for Israel") and the strong desire to prevent any other nations from being strong and independent enough to ignore commands from Washington.

      But by far the strongest motive of all is the need to maintain the US dollar as the principal world reserve currency. This is largely, though not entirely, dependent on the petrodollar, which in turns requires that all (or nearly all) wholesale purchases of oil are made with dollars. Anyone who tries to start selling large quantities of oil for any other currency can expect to be terminated with extreme prejudice, if that is at all possible. The use of another currency across a large area of the world is also likely to bring one's earthly existence to a rapid close, as Colonel Qadafi found. He was planning to introduce a gold dinar as a common currency throughout Africa. Since his death that idea has been forgotten, and the very large amount of gold that he had obtained with a view to minting coins has vanished. Who knows where it may have gone? It might be unwise to inquire too closely.

      Today we are seeing very large and powerful nations like China, Russia, and the other BRICS nations, as well as Iran, making arrangements to trade on a very large scale in currencies other than the dollar. Gold, too, is making a reappearance as the BRICS and many Asian nations accumulate it as fast as possible. It has always been considered impossible to "get out of" the dollar, as doing so would cause any nation's huge dollar reserves to lose value, or become entirely worthless. However, some nations now seem ready to take that hit.

      The big question is whether Washington, confronted with decision makers who cannot be eliminated without nuclear war, will stop short of that line.

      --
      I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
    2. Re:Incentives by AmiMoJo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The referendum needs a third option: EU MAX. We would go all in, adopt the Euro, become a major player and shape the union like Germany does.

      As you say, the EU would be much more effective if it was more federal.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  2. view not shared by all link by iplayfast · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.