Slashdot Mirror


Britain's Scientists Are 'Freaking Out' Over Brexit (washingtonpost.com)

"To use a nonscientific term, the scientists in the country are freaking out," reports the Washington Post. An anonymous Slashdot reader quotes their report: The researchers worry that Britain will not replace funding it loses when it leaves the E.U., which has supplied about $1.2 billion a year to support British science, approximately 10 percent of the total spent by government-funded research councils. There is a whiff of panic in the labs.

Worse than a possible dip in funding is the research community's fear that collaborators abroad will slink away and the country's universities will find themselves isolated. British research today is networked, expensive, competitive and global. Being part of a pan-European consortium has helped put Britain in the top handful of countries, based on the frequency of citations of its scientific papers... Anecdotal evidence suggests that headhunters may already be circling.

Meanwhile, NPR reports that Britain's vote to leave the EU "has depressed the value of the British pound," prompting many Britons to vacation at home rather than abroad -- while "Americans will find their dollars go further in Britain these days." And an anonymous Slashdot reader quotes a report from CNBC that Ford "is considering closing plants in the UK and across Europe in response to Britain's vote to leave the EU, as it forecast a $1 billion hit to its business over the next two years."

517 comments

  1. But they pay more to the EU than they get back. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    How is it a problem when you start losing less money? Don't English scientists know math?

    1. Re:But they pay more to the EU than they get back. by iris-n · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Are you being sarcastic? Or do you really believe that Britain is losing money with the EU? Oh boy you are in for some cognitive dissonance.

      --
      entropy happens
    2. Re:But they pay more to the EU than they get back. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      As a whole, the country paid more than it got back. Scientists, on the other hand, got a "good" deal.

      Though it certainly did come with a lot of strings attached. Leaving aside the fact that all scientists became paid lobbyists for the EU, much of that "research" money had to be spent on specific things, such as travel and meetings, and all of the "research" that was actually carried out had to be done in accordance with the EU's rules, which were mainly focused on the production of detailed status reports known as "work packages". An EU-funded research project would produce a tonne of paperwork, lots of office politics, and very little actual science.

    3. Re:But they pay more to the EU than they get back. by Chrisq · · Score: 2

      How is it a problem when you start losing less money? Don't English scientists know math?

      On the simple calculation fees - money coming then yes, we spent 100 million a week. On the other hand if you count the benefits in terms of trade, inward investment by companies wanting to do business in Europe, etc. then we almost certainly gained. The brexiter's argument (when not lying) was that they'd rather be poorer with fewer immigrants.

    4. Re:But they pay more to the EU than they get back. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12176663/EU-Facts-how-much-does-Britain-pay-to-the-EU-budget.html

      http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35943216

    5. Re:But they pay more to the EU than they get back. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Benefit in terms of trade? UK has a 25 billion deficit with the EU, it trades at a LOSS with the EU.

      That was kind of the main thrust of the Brexit arguments... why pay 10.5 billion net to access a market to pay another 25 billion in losses? Likewise the claim that UK won't have a free trade agreement with the EU doesn't make sense. The tariffs on trade with the EU are less than the 10.5 billion we pay.... i.e. even if it had to subsidize industry due to EU imposing tariffs it would still be better off. But EU would be shooting itself in the foot to block access to the UK, and give up 25 billion ontop of the 10.5 billion it will already be losing.

      "The brexiter's argument (when not lying) was that they'd rather be poorer with fewer immigrants"

      You seem to want to change the subject, on trade and money terms, UK will be far better off. Even the fall in the pound mentioned should help exports of services (UK's main export group).

    6. Re:But they pay more to the EU than they get back. by tsa · · Score: 2

      And what does popularism get you? A deep and long depression, unemployment and no less immigrants.

      --

      -- Cheers!

    7. Re:But they pay more to the EU than they get back. by Chrisq · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And what does popularism get you? A deep and long depression, unemployment and no less immigrants.

      Absolutely. The biggest worry is that the government maintains the same level of immigration to keep business costs (i.e. wages) low, but that without the preference to European countries that means more Muslims - with the consequent increase of child rape gangs, terrorist acts, "honour" killings, no-go-areas etc.

    8. Re:But they pay more to the EU than they get back. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      We don't trade at a loss with the EU, we are in a state of trade deficit because we buy more from the EU than we sell. I'm at a trade deficit with the local supermarket because I do all my grocery shopping there and they don't buy anything from me.

      Losing/reducing the EU market would only be a good thing if we could source the goods we import from the EU more cheaply elsewhere, whilst at the same time either maintaining our exports or selling elsewhere at a better price or volume.

      The sort of logic that presents a trade deficit as "25 billion in losses" is the kind of faulty thinking that landed the UK in this mess in the first place, and why most people weren't remotely able to cast an educated vote.

    9. Re:But they pay more to the EU than they get back. by rainmouse · · Score: 0, Troll

      Are you being sarcastic? Or do you really believe that Britain is losing money with the EU? Oh boy you are in for some cognitive dissonance.

      The people in the UK (mostly England actually) who swallowed this nonsense also display strong correlations with casual racism, a taste for Tabloid papers (I omit the word 'news'), poor education and old age.

      The terrifying thing about all this is in the UK as a whole, they make up the apparent majority.

    10. Re:But they pay more to the EU than they get back. by Crashmarik · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As a whole, the country paid more than it got back. Scientists, on the other hand, got a "good" deal.

      Though it certainly did come with a lot of strings attached. Leaving aside the fact that all scientists became paid lobbyists for the EU, much of that "research" money had to be spent on specific things, such as travel and meetings, and all of the "research" that was actually carried out had to be done in accordance with the EU's rules, which were mainly focused on the production of detailed status reports known as "work packages". An EU-funded research project would produce a tonne of paperwork, lots of office politics, and very little actual science.

      Sort of like most bureaucratic organizations. It's not surprising the same thing happens on this side of the pond.

      I will make an observation, those at the top of the food chain on both sides aren't the best at advancing science but rather navigating the politics of their respective funding bodies and insuring compliance with minutiae of bureaucracy.

      Those are the same people that will be out in the cold with Brexit. Not surprising they would be upset.

    11. Re:But they pay more to the EU than they get back. by tempmpi · · Score: 2

      The paperwork is really not that bad. You need to report your results and how you spend the EU money. Other research project would generate a similar amount of paper trail. As soon as your project is greenlight, the amount of documentation is fair given the big amounts of money most project receive. The bigger issue is that to get your project funded you need to send in big and really well written project proposals and your chances of actually getting money are rather small.

      --
      Jan
    12. Re:But they pay more to the EU than they get back. by Crashmarik · · Score: 3, Interesting

      And what does popularism get you? A deep and long depression, unemployment and no less immigrants.

      Crystal ball ??

      How long has that depression of the U.K.'s manufacturing sector been going on ?

    13. Re:But they pay more to the EU than they get back. by oobayly · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's a problem, due to there being absolutely no guarantee that the UK will spend the money it currently sends to the EU on all the EU supported projects - science, agrigulture, business development. It's not a guarantee, because a lot of the money will go to funding the extra costs Brexit will incur, such as outsourcing trade negotiators, border security costs (visting EU nationals), vetting of EU nationals wanting to work in the UK, amongst others.

      This likely cut in funding was almost immediately obvious when areas such as Cornwal & Wales immediately realised that by voting Brexit, development funds from the EU would be likely to be stopped. Cornwall, for example is wanting assurances about how it will be funded

      Alternate sources, if you're not keen on the Grauniad:
      Cornwall demands £500m to replace lost EU cash
      Cornwall votes decisively for Brexit - then seeks 'assurances' that it won't lose the £60million a year it gets in EU subsidies

    14. Re:But they pay more to the EU than they get back. by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It might result in fewer immigrants. Or, at least, fewer immigrants with marketable skills. We saw this a decade or so back when the Polish economy improved and a load of Polish plumbers decided to go back there, leaving the UK with a skills shortage. There still aren't enough British plumbers to make up the shortfall, but we've benefitted from importing them from other countries so plumbing work is now only very expensive to get done and not totally extortionate.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    15. Re:But they pay more to the EU than they get back. by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      And what does popularism get you? A deep and long depression, unemployment and no less immigrants.

      Oh don't forget we got to really stick it to the political establishment by siding with Gove and Johnson over Cameron. Take that, Eton toff. Cameron I mean, Johnson.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    16. Re:But they pay more to the EU than they get back. by serviscope_minor · · Score: 5, Informative

      The paperwork is really not that bad.

      As a former Framework Warrior, the hell it ain't!

      Other research project would generate a similar amount of paper trail.

      No they don't. Compare, for example the reporting requirements of RCUK to the EU framework projects.

      These reporting requirements relative to the amount of actual work of these projects are legedary. It's what grizzled old postdocs talk about in the pub.

      Nonetheless, the money is still good, and you get to keep the equipment after and keep researching with it. Not to mention the inevitable side projects that the postdocs and students work on. I think the indirect impact of the work is actually more than the direct impact sometimes. I did my best work while moonlighting on an FP7 project.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    17. Re:But they pay more to the EU than they get back. by iris-n · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It is common courtesy to write some text around your links, or at least make them clickable via some basic html.

      But nevermind that. The point of your links is that the UK does send about 8 billion pounds to the EU every year (much less than the 18 billion claimed by the Leavers), which is true. But the question to ask is whether this is just money burned, or is it an investment that pays off. In other words, is the extra money the UK makes from being in the EU more than 8 billion an year?

      Well, given that the UK's GDP is about 1800 billion pounds, and that the pounds lost about 10% of its value since the Brexit referendum, the UK is already 180 billion bounds poorer. France has immediately overtaken it as the 5th largest economy in the aftermath of the referendum. This suggests that the contribution to the EU budget is just chump change compared to the value of being in the EU.

      --
      entropy happens
    18. Re:But they pay more to the EU than they get back. by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      The statistic from last week: the loss in value of the UK taxpayer-owned portion of RBS since the referendum is more than the total that we paid to the EU in a year.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    19. Re:But they pay more to the EU than they get back. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "I assume everyone who disagrees with me is a racist. This makes it much easier for me to assume a moral high ground and dismiss their opinions and experiences out of hand without engaging." -everyone who voted to stay

      I can see why you people do this. It's very easy and conveinient!

    20. Re:But they pay more to the EU than they get back. by umghhh · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Not sure if all people that vote for Brexit were what you alleged i.e. uneducated, old racists. But I am sure there are surely solutions to this problem - some of them have been tried in the past - you can start with reeducation camps and see what you do next if that does not work.
      In other words by calling all Brexiters old uneducated xenophobes you slur at educated tolerant people that did not believe all the lies, think there are ways around problems and value democracy more than the undemocratic bunch in Brussels. Now I do not live in UK but in Germany and in German press there was a lot of calls for ignoring referendum results - to save democracy not less. With such a bunch it is maybe better to keep out, I do not know. In any case I have uneasy feeling when I look, for instance, at how we were all forced in an alliance with Turkey - something that has not been discussed with anybody besides some head of states i.e. something that lacked legitimacy while at the same time some alternative solutions were at hand (which Austria used together with Macedonia). Then there are other arguments - the policies of EU left huge groups of people in each country without benefits - the local governments helped of course and Italy, Spain, Portugal and Greece have much to blame there too but EU stance was not ideal to say the least. Then take any of the common policies - common agricultural or fisheries policies - they are failures and there is no sign of improvement there. The list of negatives is long, at least as long as the least of positives. EU HQ refuses to address any of these problems and I do not mean curvature of cucumbers and banana and other some nonsense which by the way would not be possible if EU regulations did not provoke blatant exaggeration and the EU authorities bothered to explain these things to dumb folk of EU.
      There is unfortunate part of Brexiters that are xenophobes are uneducated and have generally problems with the rest of the society. If you are going to single out a small London minority as the only Brits than I am afraid you are on a good way to political area where most of us do not want to be. The same process is seen in almost any other country. In Germany the propaganda machine works efficiently and people still believe what they are fed. Not sure if that is all that good. Sometimes you have to give up few good things together with the ones you cannot tolerate. Maybe that is what Brits did. Calling the Brexiters od uneducated and xenophobic means that you gave up quite big chunk of population - what are you going to do with them?
      Btw - I personally profited greatly from open borders in EU. I did live better when the borders existed tho. I accepted the decrease of life quality but only because I considered it worthwhile. When I look at likes of Juncker or Merkel or great democrats in Spain that cannot calm down their own separatism movements but are already salivating at the possibility for continental blockade to get the Rock back, when I look at all this, I start to have justified doubts. Maybe UK will suffer short term. In long term they will be as good as others. And as for EU - if we have problems because of brexit we can always let Turkey in - that will surely strengthen our democracy.

    21. Re:But they pay more to the EU than they get back. by umghhh · · Score: 2

      The part of the argument i.e. about lost opportunities if trade war ensues is true. Al will lose - some more than the others.
      The point is - better to avoid trade war and try to make an arrangement. This will not be easy with current climate in EU corridors of power. Then there is the UK side - the people that felt disadvantaged may get the UK chunk of corrupt elite stay with them and suck on their blood. There is a bit more work to be done than to say 'brexit'. There was also hope on the some continental quarters that EU shocked with Brexit will look at itself and tries to correct its ways. I do not see it happening - instead I see typical infighting between commission and council about Brexit negotiations for instance. We need to throw the old commission out and modify few things if EU is to survive and we all are to prosper. If we let the elites suck all the benefits and leave the rest alone to rot than we deserve another run of middle ages.

    22. Re:But they pay more to the EU than they get back. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      RBS's business is the same as it was pre-referendum. Once Ross McEwan (CEO) stops talking the bank stock price down it will rebound.

    23. Re:But they pay more to the EU than they get back. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      > It is common courtesy to write some text around your links

      I agree: some descriptive text is in order and would be of great help for people who browse with little time (like at work for instance). If the author her/himself works at a pretty liberal place, that would be excusable (also kudos for the employers for being knowledgeable about management).

      > or at least make them clickable via some basic html.

      There's no need for that. It's 2016: just triple-click on the address and it will be entirely selected; then drag and drop it onto the tab bar (tested in Firefox and Chromium) -- a little arrow will appear showing the insertion point for a new tab which will open the selected address.

      Of course, in Linux you can also middle-click to paste, much easier than the Windows Control-C, Control-V manoeuvre (English syntax as courtesy).

    24. Re:But they pay more to the EU than they get back. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And what does popularism get you? A deep and long depression, unemployment and no less immigrants.

      So what? You can still blame it on the course your opponents set. And on the depressed, unemployed, and immigrants. And it's not like you would be able to guess from the election propaganda who of the parties is actually incumbent: all of them promise a whole lot of improvements over the current state.

    25. Re:But they pay more to the EU than they get back. by Hodr · · Score: 2

      hrmph. What do you mean "you" people!?

    26. Re:But they pay more to the EU than they get back. by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      "re still aren't enough British plumbers to make up the shortfall, but we've benefitted from importing them from other countries so plumbing work is now only very expensive to get done and not totally extortionate."

      That, and the long-standing European tradition that if you are newly trained as a plumber and there is already a plumber in your village, you have to wait until the first one retires.

    27. Re:But they pay more to the EU than they get back. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You say the UK receives more than it pays into the EU. Who pays for Romania, Greece, Bulgaria, Poland, Czechia, Portugal, Latvia, et al? Is Germany paying for *everyone*? Christ, what a mess.

    28. Re:But they pay more to the EU than they get back. by Barsteward · · Score: 0

      sorry, thats far too complicated for he leavers to comprehend as they can only see money spent and not earnt

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    29. Re:But they pay more to the EU than they get back. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An old aircraft aphorism: The plane won't fly until it is outweighed by the paperwork.

    30. Re:But they pay more to the EU than they get back. by horza · · Score: 1, Informative

      That's not how it works, iris-n. The pound fluctuates against the euro, it always has done and it always will. It went from 1.3 to 1.2, but it's been 1.04 before. This doesn't make Britain richer or poorer linearly as most of the GDP is spent within the UK itself. For instance the NHS pays doctors and nurses in pounds, therefore the pound going down makes no difference, but it will make drugs more expensive to buy from abroad.

      Phillip.

    31. Re:But they pay more to the EU than they get back. by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      As a whole, the country paid more than it got back.

      Still waiting for the gov to say anything about using that money to fund what is going to lose funding, and what might be done with the rest. Of course, after the result everyone just kinda shut up about that. I guess they've already committed a bunch of it away to their private interests. I mean we can fund trident in the aftermath but not bursaries for nurses and midwifes, who now aren't going to be coming in from the EU or from outside because they don't earn £35k/annum (Thanks to May for that one). So we can kill millions in a revenge attack that will never happen while fucking the NHS even harder. God damn mother fucking tories! All as a result from Scameron trying to score a few political points. Don't worry about him though, he's a multi millionaire and will be just fine in this shit show he got us in to.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    32. Re:But they pay more to the EU than they get back. by myowntrueself · · Score: 4, Funny

      And what does popularism get you? A deep and long depression, unemployment and no less immigrants.

      Absolutely. The biggest worry is that the government maintains the same level of immigration to keep business costs (i.e. wages) low, but that without the preference to European countries that means more Muslims - with the consequent increase of child rape gangs, terrorist acts, "honour" killings, no-go-areas etc.

      Or worse; more Australians.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    33. Re:But they pay more to the EU than they get back. by rainmouse · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      "I assume everyone who disagrees with me is a racist. This makes it much easier for me to assume a moral high ground and dismiss their opinions and experiences out of hand without engaging." -everyone who voted to stay

      I can see why you people do this. It's very easy and conveinient!

      Oh go for crowd pleasing upvote clicking, social justice easymode retort shy of any actual facts. Sir, take your '"you people" and feck off!

      Any campaign run on Xenophobia, fear of immigrants and refugees is racist and since the vote the country as enjoyed a huge surge of racially motivated incidents, as if this vote has given license to be a dick.
      http://www.independent.co.uk/n...
      https://www.theguardian.com/co...
      http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix...
      http://www.huffingtonpost.co.u...

    34. Re:But they pay more to the EU than they get back. by iris-n · · Score: 3, Informative

      The pound fluctuates against the euro, it always has done and it always will. It went from 1.3 to 1.2, but it's been 1.04 before.

      That is a bit of an understatement, Gomuchul. The pound has hit 1.04€, it is true, but in the height of the 2008 crysis. If you look at the whole history of the GBP vs. EUR exchange rate, you see that the pound starts off rather valuable, decreases to about 1.5€ and stays there for some yeara, then crashes to 1.05€ in the 2008 crysis, slowly recovers to 1.5€, and then rapidly gets down to 1.2€ as the referendum gets near.

      It's true that the effect is not linear, as lots od the pounds are spent in Britain itself, but still the economy is deeply integrated with the EU. I'm sure the amount of wealth lost is much larger than 8 billion pounds, even if it doean't reach 180 billion pounds.

      --
      entropy happens
    35. Re:But they pay more to the EU than they get back. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yeah, those fucking racists. I wonder why.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    36. Re:But they pay more to the EU than they get back. by ganjadude · · Score: 4, Insightful

      no its really not racist

      Nationalist , but not racist. That word literally has no meaning after the past decade

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    37. Re:But they pay more to the EU than they get back. by Maritz · · Score: 2

      The EU governance/parliament values science, and the dickheads running the UK do not value science. That too fucking hard for you to follow?

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    38. Re:But they pay more to the EU than they get back. by Maritz · · Score: 1

      The leave voters, who only want brown/foreign people to go away, are not going to be overly concerned about science funding. When I say not overly concerned what I mean is, they'd be pleased to hear that those egghead cunts are not getting to squander more money.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    39. Re:But they pay more to the EU than they get back. by Maritz · · Score: 0

      Leave won the vote because they convinced racists that it would make the foreigners and non-whites go away. I wouldn't be surprised if there was the occasional non-racist leave voter, but that isn't why they won. They won because they appealed to basic, visceral, racism. And they won. Congrats to them.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    40. Re:But they pay more to the EU than they get back. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    41. Re:But they pay more to the EU than they get back. by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 2

      The muslims that immigrate are usually those that run away from: child rape gangs, terrorist acts, "honour" killings, no-go-areas etc

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    42. Re:But they pay more to the EU than they get back. by tsa · · Score: 1

      This.

      And popularism also gets you more xenophobia.

      --

      -- Cheers!

    43. Re:But they pay more to the EU than they get back. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The muslims that immigrate are usually those that run away from: child rape gangs, terrorist acts, "honour" killings, no-go-areas etc

      Though "mostly" is true a significant proportion want to bring this to the West.

    44. Re:But they pay more to the EU than they get back. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > or at least make them clickable via some basic html.

      There's no need for that. It's 2016: just triple-click on the address and it will be entirely selected; then drag and drop it onto the tab bar (tested in Firefox and Chromium) -- a little arrow will appear showing the insertion point for a new tab which will open the selected address.

      True on a real browser, but it's enough of a PITA on mobile that I generally don't bother.

    45. Re:But they pay more to the EU than they get back. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just say what you wanted to really say - "evil old racist white men", because you know you believe they're the cause of all that's wrong with the world, and give them no credit for all that's right. Gee, I wonder how impartial the news or poll source for these supposed correlations are.
      Funny how the people who chant "love, change and hope" are only seeing the glass as half empty and passing massive amounts of judgement on a daily basis.

    46. Re:But they pay more to the EU than they get back. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes, if you cherry-pick the dates, 10% is roughly correct.

      Now if I cherry-pick my own dates (April to today), we can see that the pound has only fallen 4% against the Euro.

      Given that currency markets fluctuate significantly over time, isn't it possible that the Pound could recover all its value against the Euro within the next 3-6 months? Will you come back to admit your point is no longer valid if this occurs?

    47. Re:But they pay more to the EU than they get back. by sexconker · · Score: 1

      The "loss in value" is virtual bullshit. The money that gets paid to the EU and distributed to other countries is real.

      Stock markets will normalize, and people who don't panic can profit off of the situation.
      On the other hand, good luck getting your money back after some Greek guy spent it on gyros.

    48. Re:But they pay more to the EU than they get back. by sexconker · · Score: 1

      In FF you can just highlight the link, then right click and open it (in the current tab, in a new tab, in a new window, or in a private tab).

    49. Re:But they pay more to the EU than they get back. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no its really not racist

        Nationalist , but not racist. That word literally has no meaning after the past decade

      Are people complaining about German, Sweedish, or French people coming in and bring in lower wages/Islam/crime/expenses to the welfare state/etc?

      You claim it is nationalist which may be true, but most of the people held up as "not our kind" tend to also be a different race. I'm not sure if it is coincidental or not.

    50. Re:But they pay more to the EU than they get back. by ubertopf · · Score: 1

      The reporting requirements in H2020 funded projects are way less. Even with late FP7 projects, our POs already told us that deliverables >120pages were somewhat frowned upon as they also realized that no one reads them anyway.

      --

      something clever to make me stand out!

    51. Re:But they pay more to the EU than they get back. by Insipid+Trunculance · · Score: 1

      you will be surprised how many brown people voted to leave , hint hint Commonwealth citizens are allowed the vote as well.

      --
      Wanted : A Signature.
    52. Re:But they pay more to the EU than they get back. by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Holy Fuck you lucky git. My FP7 PO complemented us on the quality of our report, then dinged us because it wasn't long enough. No joke.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    53. Re:But they pay more to the EU than they get back. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is incoherent. Immigrants, by and large, are drawn to countries whose economies are doing well - not to those suffering "deep and long depressions". So if that happens, which incidentally there is no real sign of yet, then immigration will definitely fall, and quite a few Europeans already in the UK will probably go home too.

    54. Re:But they pay more to the EU than they get back. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > True on a real browser, but it's enough of a PITA on mobile that I generally don't bother.

      You surely are right and I stand corrected. Pardon me if I'm too desktop-centric. That happens to old geezers.

    55. Re:But they pay more to the EU than they get back. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks, I forgot about that possibility. I figure FF must cater to a lot of different user preferences...

    56. Re:But they pay more to the EU than they get back. by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      yes, people are complaining about those coming in and taking the high paying jobs.

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    57. Re:But they pay more to the EU than they get back. by HuguesT · · Score: 1

      Get a course on macroeconomics, the money lost is real enough.

    58. Re:But they pay more to the EU than they get back. by HuguesT · · Score: 1

      Definitely need a course in macroeconomics. Should be a requirement for voting these days.

  2. Oh really? by Fragnet · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Well, perhaps we could find a better way to hand out grants to scientists, so we don't end up wasting it. I mean there's the Replication Crisis to consider, and the Decline Effect, and then somewhere north of 40,000 neurology papers that were a waste of time (not all British of course).

    I think Ford are closing plants all over the place. Their sales are weaker in the USA and China too, which is absolutely nothing to do with Brexit, although Brexit is a wonderful excuse for useless executives to hang their poor performance on.

    1. Re:Oh really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Ford had already identified those plants for closure BEFORE the date of the referendum was set.
      This is all spin trying to attribute these closures to BREXIT when its due to a general downturn...

    2. Re:Oh really? by Crashmarik · · Score: 0

      I think Ford are closing plants all over the place. Their sales are weaker in the USA and China too, which is absolutely nothing to do with Brexit, although Brexit is a wonderful excuse for useless executives to hang their poor performance on.

      Wish I had mod points for that. It's the oldest human excuse, "It was anyone, anything but me"

    3. Re:Oh really? by loonycyborg · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Well, perhaps we could find a better way to hand out grants to scientists, so we don't end up wasting it. I mean there's the Replication Crisis to consider, and the Decline Effect, and then somewhere north of 40,000 neurology papers that were a waste of time (not all British of course).

      Those things pretty much demonstrate that funding of this "science" is mostly empty waste of money. Acquiring funding and doing science are two totally different skillsets and this pretty much guarantees that people doing actual (that is replicable) science will get jack shit. I see nothing bad about those pseudo-scientists, whose only "productive" contribution to society is to elicit citations from other such pseudo-scientists in endless circlejerk, to get a tiny bit less grants which are mostly wasted anyway.

    4. Re:Oh really? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Informative

      The EU is a pretty efficient way of handing the money out. It goes to the best places from a larger pool, and makes it easier to see cross-border cooperation opportunities.

      I'd be amazed if they maintained the funding levels they were getting previously, since we were getting more out than we put in which means we would would need to increase our funding levels at a time when we have a recession looming and many other groups are clamouring for matched EU funding too. The worsening immigration situation is not going to help either.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    5. Re:Oh really? by hey! · · Score: 2

      Actually, some of the key papers behind the "replication crisis" notion haven't stood up to scrutiny. I am not being ironic here; the non-replicability results haven't been replicated.

      This of course is normal for science. Error is an expected part of the scientific method; the existence of non replicable results is presumed. That's why when a hypothesis is proposed it's almost always immediately refuted. Then it will be un-refuted, and after that re-refuted. This continues until evidence begins to decisively mount on one side or the other. So there may be a replication crisis; there may not be. As usual we won't know until the tennis match is over. This by the way is why layman shouldn't ever use individual scientific papers in making any kind of important decision (e.g.,what is healthy to eat). You should only rely upon either a trusted expert, or review papers published in high-impact journals.

      The only way funders can increase the speed of purging bad results is to increase funding. There's no way they can ensure that the results they pay for will definitely be reproducible without putting their thumbs on the scale in favor of or against. That of course would get you the appearance of the result you want without the substance.

      As for the number of useless papers, everyone knows this is true. The reason nobody has done anything about it is that the forces creating this problem are decentralized; nobody has control over them. On one hand you have thousands of tenure committees exerting publication pressure on untenured faculty. On the other hand you have thousands journal editors eager to pad out their publications even if it means accepting duff. This doesn't seem to be an issue that funders can fix. I don't know if anyone has studying the economic costs of pot-boiler papers, but from what I've seen crap papers are generally not high rent affairs. People for the most part don't seem to take major grants and produce pointless papers; they cobble together their pot-boilers out odds and ends they have lying around.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    6. Re:Oh really? by Fragnet · · Score: 1

      I don't know why this is modded "redundant", it's insightful. Applying for and winning grants is a skill in itself, as every scientist (with funding) knows.

    7. Re:Oh really? by HuguesT · · Score: 1

      Define wasting. Do you mean never making mistakes? isn't that a little disingenuous?

      40k papers sound enormous but there are about 1.5 million articles published every year (and growing). Inevitably some of that is crap. However properly done science is self-correcting in the long run.

      There are many examples of accepted mathematical proofs that turned out to false. This does not mean that mathematics is a worthless endeavour.

    8. Re:Oh really? by Fragnet · · Score: 1

      I totally agree it's self-correcting for undefined values of t, yes. However there's a more important issue here, and that's the incestuous relationship between government, policy and scientists. That is to say, a fair chunk of scientists are working in the policy-based evidence manufacture industry. I'm not talking about the people at CERN with their beautiful 5-sigma results. I'm talking about the kind of cretin who tells me egg yolks give me heart disease and then 10 years later tells me they don't. This is a real problem because it undermines public trust in science and scientists - and of course the hype is mostly institution-PR, not the scientists themselves. Perhaps less money will concentrate minds.

  3. Re: I'm still LOLing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    Enjoy your shitty internet, shitty weather and shitty non-culture.

    'Baby, baby, baby - oooooohhhh'

    Sorry.

  4. Usual media FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Like Y2K Brexit is turning out to be a non-problem. Wiser heads have already made a killing out of buying the dip to profit from the over-reaction driven by hyperbolic media scare-mongering.

    UK business and growth will get a great boost from fall in pound - as the article already mentions more people holidaying at home and tourists and other businesses seeking bargins in UK. This can only bump up employment and reduce welfare payments.

    Trade will continue on as it has - the EU sends more to UK than UK sends to EU, so the EU is net worse off if it starts implementing tarriffs

    And UK has done themselves a huge favour getting out of EU before the PIGS economies go into default (inevitable over next 10 years given their high debt-to-GDP ratios and massive youth unemployment). They are too big to bail out, but EU's silly attempts to prop them up will inevitably hurt the stronger economies of the EU. Far better to be outside looking in than inside trying to prop up basket cases.
    .
    UK will inevitably have a stronger economy going forward than it would have within the EU, and this can only help investment in science and R&D within UK (as it will be wasting less money on subsidising poor performing EU economies).

    1. Re:Usual media FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What a long pile of stupid delusions.

    2. Re:Usual media FUD by oobayly · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Trade will continue on as it has - the EU sends more to UK than UK sends to EU, so the EU is net worse off if it starts implementing tarriffs

      Only if you completely ignore the relative sizes of the UK & EU GDPs and overall exports. Guess what, absolute numbers need context. A simple way of looking at it is "who would be hit hardest if UK-EU trade stopped overnight".

      In 2015, the UK exported 220 billion GBP to the EU, whereas it imported 290 billion GBP. That is 44% of the UK's exports went to the EU, whereas 8-17% of the EU's exports went to the UK, so the UK would be a bigger loser.
      As a percentage of GDP, the UK's EU exports made up about 10% of its GDP (2 trillion GBP), whereas the EU's UK exports made up a mere 2% of its GDP (12 trillion GBP).

      Source: https://fullfact.org/europe/uk...

    3. Re:Usual media FUD by serviscope_minor · · Score: 4, Funny

      Your facts are fear mongering. I don't want to hear them. I'm tired of experts and I don't like immigrants. And we won a big war a long time ago so there.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    4. Re: Usual media FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Don't mention the war!" *goosesteps off*

    5. Re:Usual media FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You didn't address his point. Instead you changed his point to "who would be hit hardest" then answered that question instead.

      His point was very simple. EU would lose a net benefit of 25 billion quid a year if it blocked trade with the UK, it would sell 290 billion less of goods and services. So it will not block trade with the UK. Such a thing would make no sense.

      You also talked about GDP (which included *internal* economy) as a switch from discussion trade. In that last bit ("whereas the EU's UK exports made up a mere 2% of its GDP"), which gives you the misleadingly low 2% claim.

      It's fear mongering, and serviscope_minor's reply to your comment (pretending that the counter argument is racism) is to simply ignore the real numbers. It's very easy to dismiss the counter arguments as just racism, but they are solid.

      Tell me, do you really think the EU will stop trading with the UK? I'm guess the answer is no, even from you. Such a claim would be ridiculous. Yet that is the claim you calculated above.

    6. Re:Usual media FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "Brexit means I can't travel or study abroad and the hateful right-wing have won. My future is destroyed and western civilisation will end with a nuclear war sparked by the evil Brexit."

      Seriously Remainiacs are some of the dumbest people I've ever met. They are magical thinkers and emotional firehoses. The experts they lined up proved to a) have a financial interest in remaining b) Globalist loons c) Wrong. Wrong. Wrong - again, since they were wrong about the Euro.

      In reality, Brexit will likely be the last straw and trigger more referendums... and probably Italian banks collapses... and hilariously Deutche Bank... which is mired in corruption and debt and fully deserves to go to the wall.

    7. Re:Usual media FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      These are "facts" but the implied meaning is misleading. The UK would not just lose 44% of exports / 10% of GDP into thin air. Exports would go to the next highest marginal buyer. Yes, the next buyer is likely at a lower price but maybe only a minuscule difference (I don't know). The point is that it IS fear mongering to spew these facts, with misleading narrative to imply that it is a "fact" that the UK will be worse off. That is not a fact.

    8. Re:Usual media FUD by Malc · · Score: 1

      Are you seriously claiming this now? Don't you think you should wait until we see what happens two years after Article 50 has been triggered? If the pound stays at this level, it won't even be until next year that we start to see the impact coming through.

      As for a weaker pound benefit exports, this didn't help us after the 2008 crash when the trade deficit didn't close. People don't want our goods at any prices we're likely to be able to offer. We've had plenty of time to learn from Germany, who have been very successful despite their high costs, inflexible labour market and no trade deal with the likes of China. What Brexit will show us is that our problems are home grown and the EU won't be a valid scapegoat.

    9. Re:Usual media FUD by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      now there is a person who has no clue but just reads rags like daily mail/express and believes their rancid analysis of things

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    10. Re:Usual media FUD by Barsteward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Seriously Remainiacs are some of the dumbest people I've ever met." says the person who believed Johnson, Gove, Farage, Daily Mail, Daily Express... my god, you must be embarrassed, if not, you should be

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    11. Re:Usual media FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And UK has done themselves a huge favour getting out of EU before the PIGS economies go into default (inevitable over next 10 years given their high debt-to-GDP ratios and massive youth unemployment).

      Don't confuse EU and the euro-zone. Netiher England nor Denmark has contributed 1 euro-cent to Greece. Only euro-land is stuck with the bill.

    12. Re:Usual media FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Seriously Remainiacs are some of the dumbest people I've ever met." says the person who believed Johnson, Gove, Farage, Daily Mail, Daily Express... my god, you must be embarrassed, if not, you should be

      Consider that the Guardian supported remain although both it's editor and economics editor came out in support of leave. Do you seriously think they were swayed by arguments from Farage, Gove or Johnson?

      Few of the remain supporters I have spoken to know anything about the EU. I've had multiple conversations where I talked at length about the issues. I'd explain protectionist policies that hurt those living on subsistence in developing nations. I'd explain how non-EU students who apply for work here are unfairly discriminated against by the "Do you have a right to work in the UK?" question. On and on with people who agree with me on every point before finally resorting to bizarre emotional outbursts.

      I would never stoop to calling remain supporters dumb. What I will say is that this; "project fear" is the most insidious, misleading and divisive propaganda exercise I have ever witnessed. The media should be ashamed of themselves!

    13. Re:Usual media FUD by horza · · Score: 1

      Brexit is a non-problem because it's not like Y2K, which had a hard deadline. The UK can trigger Article 50 whenever it suits them. Assuming Parliament votes it through. And the House of Lords ratifies it. At the moment it is planned to be triggered the start of next year. Then there are a supposed two years to then negotiate the exit, though as this has never been done before who knows if that won't be extended. More complicated trade deals could take even longer to complete.

      Until we go out in a few years, the UK is a fully paid up EU member and will continue to reap the benefits for its continuing contributions. This gives time for science councils to petition the UK government to ring-fence sums in future tax revenues to replace funding that would otherwise have come from the EU. Scientists have been become too accustomed to begging for scraps from the gravy train because EU money is "free". Er no, that EU money came largely from us and goes to you after deducting a hefty Brussels "administration fee".

      Phillip.

    14. Re:Usual media FUD by oobayly · · Score: 2

      You've completely missed the point - the fact that even though the UK has a trade deficit with the EU, it's the UK that is likely to be hit hardest because the relative size of their respective economies.

      "Exports would go to the next highest marginal buyer."

      If that would happen in the UK, so everything is fine and dandy, why would you discount it happening in the EU too?

    15. Re:Usual media FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you say EU is going to have to buy their shit elsewhere and the UK will focus their trade with other countries, like a sensible business-man, who don't like to be extorted, would?

      And those whining scientists would have to look at the numbers and see that GB would have more than 6 billion pounds more to spend, if they leave EU.

      Oh, shut the fuck up with the panic! Are there really not a single british person who are smart enough to figure that shit out and get things done? It's not the end of the world, you just saved money by cancelling your Netflix subscription. Move on, find new trade partners, use them as leaverage against EU spend your 6 billion pounds.

      You got away from the European Federation, be happy about your newly gained independence!

    16. Re:Usual media FUD by dave420 · · Score: 1

      So the best way to fix a broken EU is to leave it and still be beholden to its laws and regulations? Hurrrrrrrrrrr

    17. Re:Usual media FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Relative and absolute numbers are both important: they tell you about different things. The fact that the major European stock markets fell by a *relative* ~7% after the referendum, whereas the UK stock market fell by ~15% (if denominated in Euros), tells you that the EU is more important to the UK economy than the UK is to the EU economy. The fact that the *absolute* loss to the EU market cap is greater than that for the UK tells you that most of the benefit from the UK's membership in the EU was accruing to the EU, rather than to the UK.

    18. Re:Usual media FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And to put things even more in perspective there is the PMI:

      https://www.markiteconomics.com/Survey/PressRelease.mvc/b68c3686a48c40198505b81e4e55cd81

      But then again it is just numbers and nothing is happening really. I am going back to bed.

    19. Re:Usual media FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So the best way to fix a broken EU is to leave it and still be beholden to its laws and regulations? Hurrrrrrrrrrr

      Well hello there Mr Strawman. Perhaps you would be better off discussing your ideas with Mr Juncker?

    20. Re:Usual media FUD by Jiro · · Score: 1

      Imagine that you have four people each trading exactly the same amount with each other. Now imagine drawing a line around one of the people and calling him a country, with no change in what he trades. You'll find that the one person exports 100% of his GDP while everyone else exports 25% of their GDP.

      All you've done is made an argument about any tariffs anywhere, for any purpose. It' naturally falls out from the way small and large countries work; it has nothing to do specifically with the UK and Europe.

    21. Re:Usual media FUD by dave420 · · Score: 2

      It doesn't work that way, though. Britain spends a lot of money on the EU, but gets back far more in indirect returns (benefits from the single market, free labour to shore up industries, banking passports allowing London to be the financial capital of the world, etc.). You are suggesting that Britain somehow makes some money out of thin air to make up for the money it no longer receives from the EU. Scientists are always begging for scraps from everyone - EU, Westminster, it doesn't matter. Don't pretend that it's simply because it's the EU that this is changed in any way. Your understanding of this is strangely lacking.

      But naaaah - instead of improving our situation within the EU, let's just stomp around and blame all kinds of nebulous "ills" on Brussels, weaken our voice in Europe, and still be almost entirely beholden to their whims. You're so clever! Yay you!

    22. Re:Usual media FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like Y2K Brexit is turning out to be a non-problem.

      Yeah. The Brits will loose some EU-funded research, but they will also no longer need to pay large sums of tax money into the EU system. One of the complaints that lead to brexit, was how they paid more into the system than they got back. So they already have all the money to fund stuff formerly funded by the EU, and then some.

    23. Re:Usual media FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "People voted to Leave because they believed Johnson, Gove, Farage, Daily Mail, Daily Express"
      "People voted to Stay because they believed Cameron, Corbyn, The Guardian".
      ... and there was me thinking that people voted after they'd reviewed all the information available and came up with their own decision.
      ... and I hope that I'm right, because otherwise we might as well ditch democracy.

    24. Re:Usual media FUD by whoever57 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      UK business and growth will get a great boost from fall in pound

      Except that UK citizens will be worse off because the cost of imported products (including such basics as oil) will increase.

      Perhaps you are too young to remember, but try googling the following words: "the pound in your pocket Wilson". Devaluation didn't work out then and there is no reason to think that it will work out now.

      The Leave campaign was based on lies and this continues. A few days after the vote, there were statements in the newspapers proclaiming how the pound had risen strongly. Yes, the pound had risen a little, but it was still way less than than its pre-Brexit-vote value. The small bump in the value of the pound was irrelevant in comparison to the large drop immediately after the vote.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    25. Re:Usual media FUD by oobayly · · Score: 1

      It depends on your take on the phrase "so the EU is net worse off if it starts implementing tarriffs". From past experience, that phrase is used to support the idea that the EU wouldn't dare to implement IPO tarrifs because they'd worry about losing the UK's business. For some reason people seem to think that if the EU implement tarrifs, the UK wouldn't - I've seen nothing to support that.

      Of course I don't think the EU would stop trading with the UK - maybe I should have put "hypotheically", but I though it was patently obvious - I used it to highlight that the numbers show the UK is not in such as strong bargaining position - in respect to trade - as people seem to believe.

    26. Re:Usual media FUD by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      more people holidaying at home

      So a big downgrade in quality of life. A nice holiday overseas reduced to a week in Bognor. Butlins must be happy.

      Trade will continue on as it has - the EU sends more to UK than UK sends to EU, so the EU is net worse off if it starts implementing tarriffs

      That's an incredibly simplistic misunderstanding.

      Take German car manufacturers. The dealer buys a car from the factory in Europe, which now costs them 10% more than it did before the vote. Someone is going to have to take this hit - either the manufacturer, the dealer or the consumer. Even cars made in the UK don't benefit much, because after we let our steel industry be destroyed by China (yay! free trade!) a lot of the parts are imported anyway, and now cost more.

      And in the wider picture, other EU members are looking to protect the EU itself and discourage others from trying to leave. Given a choice between 10% tariffs and the union suffering further damage and break-up, they will opt to screw the UK and take the hit. Less than 10% of their exports go to the UK, around 45% of our imports come from the EU. We will suffer far more than they will.

      UK will inevitably have a stronger economy

      Germany's economy is 15% larger than the UK's per head of population, despite Germany being the union of a western and an ex-Soviet block country. Their economy, along with the EU as a whole, is growing faster than ours. When they announce that they want to leave the single market during negotiations things will get even worse for us. It will be another Black Friday.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    27. Re:Usual media FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Suck it up losers. The majority of the people in the UK voted to leave Europe because quite frankly it's a pile of shit. Unelected officials, massively corrupt, incompetent and open borders letting all and sundry in flooding the continent with low intelligence ISIL jihadists and their stone age culture.

      If any of you panty waist whinging remaintards love Europe so much why don't you just fuck off and go and live in Gemany ?

      The UK is free of that shit and we're not going back.

    28. Re:Usual media FUD by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      that only works if you think the EU will no longer trade with the UK, and what good reason would there be for that???

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    29. Re:Usual media FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually the fact that UK imports MORE from the EU than it exports is EXACTLY what the EU is looking for. Almost all nations in the EU have been told to stop their importing and concentrate on exports, due to austerity measures. The fact that the EU now just potentially lost an export market means that policy may be questionable in the future. That's not to say that policy itself was ever a good policy, and in fact was a horrible policy.

    30. Re:Usual media FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a loyal EU citizen I'll tell you to shut the fuck up and listen to our Leader, Mr Juncker. The EU Commission is the only authority that can save Europe from chaos, and we must follow its directives without question. Only through obedience and discipline will we Europeans once again have mastery over the whole world, as our destiny is. Hail Europe! Hail!

    31. Re:Usual media FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like Y2K Brexit is turning out to be a non-problem.

      Y2K and Brexit are non-problems, just like Trump is the ideal candidate to make America great again...

      Really uneducated people are the ones with the best comments aren't they?

    32. Re:Usual media FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like Y2K Brexit is turning out to be a non-problem.

      Y2K and Brexit are non-problems, just like Trump is the ideal candidate to make America great again...

      Really uneducated people are the ones with the best comments aren't they?

      People aren't uneducated just because they disagree with you trophy child.

    33. Re:Usual media FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The numbers between Canada and the US are skewed the same way as what you're suggesting will kill the UK, but even moreso.

      Yet, somehow, life goes on between our economically separate countries.

    34. Re: Usual media FUD by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      I mentioned it once, but I think I got away with it.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    35. Re:Usual media FUD by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      Why is it incumbent upon Britain to fix a broken EU?
      And how, by the way, seeing as how the rules and regs of the EU are not under British influence?
      Why would a Britain which leaves the EU still be beholden to its laws and regulations?

    36. Re:Usual media FUD by Fragnet · · Score: 1

      Yes you see the problem here. (1) there's absolutely no chance trade will stop - both the UK and EU are members of the WTO so your hypothesis here is just a fantasy and (2) the UK now has greater scope for deals abroad (so far 27 countries have expressed an interest in bilateral trade deals with the UK), so any export loss to the EU will be more than offset elsewhere, especially as elsewhere tends to be growing whilst the EU is stuck in a Euro-denominated perma-crisis.

      And I'm not really sure why you aren't parcelling up the export figures by country rather than using the UK individually v the rest of the EU as a whole. German exports to the UK amount to €89 billion. UK exports to Germany are €39 billion. We have a €50 billion trade deficit with Germany - and Germany is the most powerful and influential member of the EU. So what do you think German policy towards the UK is going to be? Another example, France. She exports $41 billion (sorry for the change in denomination) to the UK. UK exports amount to $27 billion. Again another huge trade deficit with another very influential EU member country.

      Why don't you think these things through?

    37. Re:Usual media FUD by Fragnet · · Score: 1

      We're beholden to Japan's laws and regulations when we export or travel to Japan. We're beholden to the USA's laws and regulations when we export or travel to the USA. Most countries in the world aren't members of the EU.

    38. Re:Usual media FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, talking about the weak pound being a net benefit because of people holidaying at home is incredibly naive when you understand that the UK is a net importing nation, a slump in the pound means that cost of importing increases, so net import costs of £36bn in May this year pre-Brexit will be equivalent to more than £40bn now with the slump in the pound pushing our trade deficit from £12bn to £16bn.

      The argument was that the weaker pound would make our exports more attractive, only manufacturing confidence levels have also plummeted - these figures, provided by different organisations aren't just based on individual assessments of confidence, by confidence determined by levels of orders, so contrary to this counteracting the increase in import costs, it's actually exacerbating it.

      I don't mind if Brexiters were willing to take responsibility for what they've chosen, but not only were they willing to ignore the facts and the projections that have now come true, terming them "project fear", but they're also now full on head in the sand pretending reality, well, isn't.

      For those who voted, if you voted for Brexit fine, you had your reasons, but at least grow some fucking balls and accept responsibility for your decision. All the figures show a heavily deteriorated economy and your only get out clause the FTSE100 is only slightly up because it's got £250bn of assurances from the BoE backing it - that is by the way, equivalent to over 12 years of EU contributions that you so keenly wanted back in our pockets.

      No one has the right to tell people how to vote, but they do have the right to hold people to account over what they vote for. Maybe in the long run they'll turn out to be right and the UK will accelerate ahead of EU economies and Brexit voters will be able to declare themselves the successful founders of that surge, but in the short term anyone who didn't vote because they didn't know, or voted remain has every right to point out the UK is now currently suffering as a result of the vote, and every right to blame Brexit voters for it. If they don't like it then maybe they shouldn't have fucking voted for it because again, you can't vote for something and then deny reality about it's effects or shirk responsibility for it. The short/medium term problems with Brexit were clearly explained and clearly repeated, in the run up to the vote, no one, absolutely no one, can claim they voted for Brexit but didn't know it would happen.

      I've said it before and I'll say it again, the Remain campaign lost the vote but have won the argument, because nearly all of the things they said would happen have happened, and this article just highlights another of those things. Whether it's economic damage, decrease in democratic accountability now that we have 4 years of dictatorship, Scientists struggling to make science work in the UK, or the fact that we wont be able to reduce immigration as key Brexit campaigners now freely admit, remain was right.

    39. Re:Usual media FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've completely missed the point. Brexit was about political issues, not maximizing economic growth.

    40. Re:Usual media FUD by Winckle · · Score: 1

      Because we have to trade with EU nations, which means our exports have to meet their standards. Since we would no longer be a member we won't have an influence on what those standards are.

  5. Good riddance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Maybe next time walk the streets in time. If you can't be bothered with politics, politics can't be bothered with you. Britain dialed itself backwards one generation. Which is not the worst time to be in unless you want to be at the forefront of anything. Which would be the point of most scientific research. So obviously scientists had a world to lose but you would not have noticed it. And in absence of respectable input they could trust, the voters basically were back to gambling on buzzphrases.

  6. Spin Spin Spin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Ford had already marked those plants for closure BEFORE the referendum date had even been set

    Do some research ...

    1. Re:Spin Spin Spin by Fragnet · · Score: 3, Informative

      Don't confuse the poor fellows with facts. Brexit is too convenient an excuse.

    2. Re:Spin Spin Spin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm.

      Ford said it expects to close plants AND to raise the prices of cars AND it expects to loose 400 million as a result of Brexit in the next two years, it was on the news ... remember ?

      I guess if you're for Brexit the economic facts of the matter are peripheral anyway - I mean if the Sun 'newspaper' says there's too many foreigners 'taking all our jobs'... it must be true.

  7. Re: But they pay more to the EU than they get back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The scientists are losing money. They are also losing research and work opportunities. That is the problem. Sorry reality does not match your narrative but that's how it is.

    It isn't as big a problem as some are making it out to be though. Moving to the EU from England is not such a big deal, they will be fine.

  8. Re: But they pay more to the EU than they get back by Fragnet · · Score: 2

    The EU will have less money to spend. The UK was a net contributor and due to its relative economic performance, was going to be an even bigger net contributor in future.

  9. Every intelligent person by drolli · · Score: 5, Insightful

    in Britain should be freaking out about the brexit.

    As a convinced European I find it highly amusing that the main "leave" campaign guys are now running away and officially stating that they have no idea what they actually planned (Yeah, we heavily lied in order to get you to approve a plan which we don't have, because it does not make any deeper sense).

    I hope that the EU gives them choice between coming back without any special status, joining the Euro and the Schengen zone or remaining in "splendid isolation". In case of the latter: not terrible for the rest of the EU - one competitor is gone, and in 30 years there will be a new developing country with cheap labor.

    1. Re:Every intelligent person by Fragnet · · Score: 0

      the main "leave" campaign guys are now running away and officially stating that they have no idea what they actually planned

      Don't confuse your own ignorance with other people not having ideas. You could, for example, read Daniel Hannan's pamphlet. There are dozens of others. In any case the whole point of the vote wasn't to elect a Leave government with a set of Leave policies, it was to enable the government to enact a policy on arrangements, something it could not have if we were members of the EU, obviously.

    2. Re:Every intelligent person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      As a convinced "leave" guy, I find it highly amusing the convinced Europeans are such incredibly bad losers, ironically proving we did the right thing to get away from those creeps.

    3. Re:Every intelligent person by quenda · · Score: 1

      the main "leave" campaign guys are now running away and officially stating that they have no idea what they actually planned

      Planning is highly overrated. Did the Coalition of the Willing need a plan? OK - bad example.

      https://youtu.be/K0hrEjqtFvE

    4. Re:Every intelligent person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every momentary lull in the nigh-on-constant whinging from remoaners is interpreted by them as being deafening silence from leave voters.

      In the meantime we've just been getting on with it, the sky has yet to fall, the sun still rises most morning and dogs and cats have yet to work out their interpersonal issues.

    5. Re:Every intelligent person by hoofie · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think you will find most people are NOT freaking out about it. The media are throwing their toys out of the pram somewhat but day-to-day it has had little impact. Business are still investing as the realisation sets in that the UK economy is so big [5th largest in the World after Germany] that the EU cannot shut the door completely and keep them out. I notice also that large non-EU economies are tripping over themselves to position for new trade deals with the UK. Australia and New Zealand for example are quick out of the blocks. The UK isn't some tinpot 3rd world country - it's a huge financial and economic power with the 5th largest military in the world, for a tiny country who also happen to own lots of shiny missiles that can turn cities into glass carparks [and no they are not under US control]. Brexit, more than anything else, was a two-fingered gesture to the political establishment in the UK and in the EU whose lack of democracy is somewhat breathtaking. The leave mob might not have had a plan but the scare tactics of Remain really blew up in their face. Wheeling out Obama who basically threatened the UK economy was a complete disaster. You could have heard the slapping of foreheads all over London. Centuries of history have proved quite categorically is you threaten the UK people or put their backs to the wall they will lash out. As for science there funding in theory would be replaced by the UK funding. I suspect those whose funding is spent on Climate Change and fluffy Environmental research are sweating as the current UK government may not be quite as keen to throw money at them. Some of us aren't quite so keen to live in a Germany-dominated super state. It didn't work out too well last time and Greece is a good example of what happens when you surrender to the central EU establishment. Other EU countries might have lost a competitor but at the same time a huge market is being shutoff. One final comment - Remainers were claiming that the EU meant peace in Europe for 70 years. Funny, I thought the presence of the thousands of US and British troops in Germany plus the US, UK and French Nuclear Deterrent had something to do with it. Or maybe the Cold War didn't happen.

    6. Re:Every intelligent person by RDW · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Don't confuse your own ignorance with other people not having ideas.

      Oh, there were plenty of ideas (or at least a set of contradictory fantasies peddled by the Leave campaigns). Practical, workable ideas, on the other hand...

    7. Re:Every intelligent person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It was a bluff to get more from the EU. Unfortunately their own people called it.

    8. Re:Every intelligent person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Intelligent people don't "freak out". They plan for and adapt to changing conditions.

    9. Re:Every intelligent person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong. It's the 6th biggest now, since the Pound lost so much ground. The 5th biggest now would be France.

    10. Re:Every intelligent person by Zocalo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Why? We still have no idea what kind of deal we are going to get when we invoke Article 50, so "Keep Calm and Carry On" seems to be a more sensible approach at this point; freaking out achieve nothing right now because there's nothing concrete to actually freak out about other than some vague thing known as "BrExit" that can't be defined. Longer term, likely at least a year away, once some details of negotiations start coming out (e.g. just how little slack the EU is prepared to cut in order to avoid other countries seeking similar deals, whether or not they insist on free travel as a condition of EEA access, Schengen as a requirement, and all the other stuff that have become mandatory membership conditions since 1975) and the markets, industry and other economic factors have had a chance to adjust, that's when it'll be time to start freaking out.

      Or not. While I think Remain would have been the better choice, I don't think Leave has to be a terrible one either; just that it's probably not going to be as good in the long term and it's all down to the negotiations. Right now Germany seems to want a reasonable deal, France seems to want to stick the knife in, and the other 25 countries fall somewhere in betweeen or have yet to make their position clear, so it could easily go either way regarding the EU, and then there are deals to be struck with other countries, especially the Commonwealth, the US, and maybe even China if the delay on Hinckley Point hasn't soured the relationship.

      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
    11. Re:Every intelligent person by drolli · · Score: 1

      Some of us aren't quite so keen to live in a Germany-dominated super state.

      It's all about the Germans ruling the world! Good that UKIP stopped these Nazis! Hooray!

    12. Re:Every intelligent person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Actually after Brexit vote the UK economy shrunk to 7th largest economy.

    13. Re:Every intelligent person by ytene · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Hoofie,

      Agree with everything you say, with one exception. It wasn't for the "BrExit" camp to have a post-referendum plan. That was the government's job. All the snide comments regarding the apparent vacuum are in fact a misdirected reflection of the fact that Cameron, the playground bully, got a bloody nose and then decided to run home to his Mummy.

      If Cameron had said, *before* the referendum, that, "In the event that the country votes to leave the EU, I will stand aside to make way for a new Leader who can take on the Article 50 negotiations in good faith," then it would have been fair to expect the Leave camp to have a structure and plan in place. He said no such thing, so towering was his arrogance that he would win. He represented the sitting government of the day. It was his job to ensure a contingency plan was in place, but was so smug in the run-up that he had ministers saying, "There is no plan B".

      His mistake.

    14. Re:Every intelligent person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's all about the Germans ruling the world! Good that UKIP stopped these Nazis! Hooray!

      Godwin would be proud, meanwhile...

    15. Re:Every intelligent person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You talk about economic and military strength and yet you seem to compare yourself to Greece to make a point? Seriously? And why even begin talking about the prowess of your military? Is that supposed to be threatening in some way? I think your whole argument boils down to "We feel inferior to the US and Germany, hence we need to lash out because that is such a grownup thing to do." As for judging what kind of science should be funded: That's none of your business as someone who is obviously not involved in the decision processes. And let me tell you one thing: It's not just about the money, it's also about collaboration. It's a good idea to pool resources, especially in science.

    16. Re:Every intelligent person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ever mature graduate and business owner, as well as small to medium company directors voted leave. Why? Because the EU experiment failed. The EU is a closed shop that forces those first world countries to support the deadbeat ones like Poland, Italy, Greece, Scotland et al. By removing the EU shackles, Britain can now deal directly with the US and South American continents, AU and NZ, plus those other insignificant powers in Japan, South Korea and China. Now weigh that up against buying German cars and French wine. Not exactly a hard choice. You see, to all but the gen-ME and lefties, being able to conduct business directly with the world's most power and rich nations is now an option. Each of those massive markets is no longer restricted by Brussels.

    17. Re:Every intelligent person by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      it was to enable the government to enact a policy on arrangements, something it could not have if we were members of the EU, obviously.

      *what* policy?

      For policy to work it has to you know, actually work and not cause vast amounts of collateral damage.

      Saying "we'll do policy" is simply a plan to have a plan not actually a plan. It's basically saying "yes, we'll have a plan one day!".

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    18. Re:Every intelligent person by tsa · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That is because Brexit is not a fact yet and it will not be for some years to come. Everybody hopes May et al., together with the EU will now do the sensible thing and keep the UK in the EU when the public has forgotten about the election.

      --

      -- Cheers!

    19. Re:Every intelligent person by serviscope_minor · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think you will find most people are NOT freaking out about it.

      Yeah the freak-out stopped because people lack that kind of energy. It's settled down to a hope that somehow the Tories will fail to put anything coherent together and prevaricate so long nothing happens.

      Business are still investing

      Not as much.

      I notice also that large non-EU economies are tripping over themselves to position for new trade deals with the UK. Australia and New Zealand for example are quick out of the blocks.

      That's good and all, but why do you think the EU is our biggest trading partner? No trade deal will be a substitute for geographic closeness.

      Brexit, more than anything else, was a two-fingered gesture to the political establishment in the UK and in the EU whose lack of democracy is somewhat breathtaking.

      Oh yeah we really stuck 2 fingers up to the political establishment by voting the way a bunch of Tories said we should, and we really gave a boost to democracy by getting ourselves an unelected PM. Fortunately we still have all of our democratically elected MEPs for now.

      Wheeling out Obama who basically threatened the UK economy was a complete disaster.

      This just shows the inianity of the exit campaign. The truth is apparently fear-mongering. But hey who needs facts. You can win a campaign on lies and innuendo.

      As for science there funding in theory would be replaced by the UK funding.

      Just like any true brexiter you have no grasp of reality.

      I suspect those whose funding is spent on Climate Change and fluffy Environmental research are sweating as the current UK government may not be quite as keen to throw money at them.

      You want the government to be the arbiter of truth now? What were you blithering about democracy just a moment ago?

      Some of us aren't quite so keen to live in a Germany-dominated super state.

      Well that's nice, because you weren't.

      It didn't work out too well last time

      Brexit because of WWII. Righty ho.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    20. Re:Every intelligent person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds good! Pity it's a fantasy. Feels very weird over here these days.

      There have been many very reliable reports of cooling off in scientific collaboration. That's bad.

    21. Re:Every intelligent person by Bongo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Matt Ridley pointed out that most scientists are misinformed about how EU science funding works. You don't have to be in the EU.

    22. Re:Every intelligent person by Dog-Cow · · Score: 0

      Godwin wouldn't give a shit, you fucked-up retard.

    23. Re:Every intelligent person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As someone who actually cares about our country, I find it incredible that morons frame this debate as if it's a sports match with winners and losers. People who are unhappy with the current situation aren't "bad losers", they're people who are genuinely concerned that we've made a bad decision that will be bad for the UK and bad for the EU.

    24. Re:Every intelligent person by Bongo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You must be Greek ;-)

      No actually, it isn't about "Germany", it is about bureaucracy. There's nothing especially wrong about bureaucracy, today. But it is slow. It doesn't adapt well to sudden shocks to the system. It isn't flexible. There is a leave argument that the EU turned into a bureaucracy linked to corporatism and failed its social mission. And eventually it fails growth because growth needs flexibility and adaptability. It is the opposite of "stronger together" -- sounds good until you realise you're still small compared to the world, and you're now slower because most of the time you're still arguing over how to reconcile East European problems with German problems with UK problems with Italian problems with Spanish problems -- they're all different and need different approaches.

      And the attitudes of UKIP supporters are just typical of the xenophobia you find in all other cultures. If anything, if you want rid of xenophobia, you'd have to stop immigration, because northern European tolerant values are more the exception than the norm in the world. (It is probably just an accident of history, it could have happened anywhere). That'll change in time, as the whole world becomes more tolerant, but you can't just get rid of it. So whether UKIP was for or against brexit is a moot point, as it cancels out.

    25. Re:Every intelligent person by Layzej · · Score: 1

      We still have no idea what kind of deal we are going to get when we invoke Article 50, so "Keep Calm and Carry On" seems to be a more sensible approach at this point; freaking out achieve nothing right now because there's nothing concrete to actually freak out about other than some vague thing known as "BrExit" that can't be defined.

      The impacts were immediate. Uncertainty is not your friend here. Not for the markets and not for scientists. "While people are debating the options for our departure from the EU over the next few years, British science is already proving itself to be well ahead of the game. We're already being widely excluded from EU grant applications, because no-one sane wants to take the risk of setting up a multi-year collaboration with a UK partner, when this partner may be pulled out at any time (and no-one would fund such a proposal when safer alternatives exist)." - http://julesandjames.blogspot....

    26. Re:Every intelligent person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ad-hominen; you are on a roll! Meanwhile...

    27. Re:Every intelligent person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ha ha ha.

      Yes if only 'ze Germans' would let poor old England out to trade with Australia (population 25 million) and New Zeland (6? million) the UK would be rich, rich, rich.

      Hard Brexit - no single market access to the 450 million strong EU ? No not such a great idea.
      Soft Brexit - still have single market access - and freedom of movement and NO say in the single market ? Ridiculous idea.
      Remain - get all the people needed for UK industry, get unrestricted access to the 450 million EU market, stay with your FRIENDS in the EU ? Hmm ... starting to make some sense.

    28. Re:Every intelligent person by oobayly · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I agree with the "keep calm and carry on" but - we have no idea what is going to happen, but because of the uncertainty some of us are making sure we'll continue to have funds to get us through any bumps.

      For example, we just had the bathrooms in our office redone and the plan was to get the kitchen done next. Right after the referendum (when the bathrooms were completed) a colleague asked "when will the kitchen be done" - he couldn't get his head around the idea that we wanted to keep our cash reserves up for the time being, and that it wasn't scaremongering, just caution.

      The problem is that we're not the only ones, and this drop in consumer confidence will have a detremental affedt on the economy - the UK (not our company surprisingly enough) is already seeing this.

      Like you I don't actually think Brexit will destroy the country, just that the pain is unlikely to be worth it. And that's speaking as an Irish citizen living and working in the UK.

    29. Re:Every intelligent person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > the UK isn't some tinpot 3rd world country - it's a huge financial and economic power with the 5th largest military in the world

      Predicated in no small way on the UKs success inside the single market.
      Typically arrogant stuff from the English nationalists here - "we're great THEY need us more than we need THEM horray for the Queen"

      Except outside the single market - significant chunks of UK business will be simply gone. The UK is only the main clearing house for the 1 trillion a week euro clearing business BECAUSE if it's membership of the single market - there is NO DOUBT with the UK on the outside, that that business is gone.

      The world has moved on from the 1950s. The UK cannot step outside of the EU and retain all of it's economic prowess - and it's a fictitious delusion to suppose there's some green upland area outside the single market - THERE IS NOT. Boris Johnson has a degree in CLASSICS NOT ECONOMICS.

      Ranting on about 'ze Germans' is just plain stupidity. The Germans cannot even get their own way in the ECB - quantitative easing and Outright-monetary-transactions (which debase the value of the euro) were opposed by the Bundesbank - but are STILL ECB POLICY.

      You'd have no clue about that - since you aren't even in the euro but of course 'ze Germans' are running the show. Do us all a favour and stop watching 'Dads army'. This is not 1939 anymore pal.

    30. Re:Every intelligent person by iris-n · · Score: 2

      You think that there is peace in Europe because the troops stationed in Germany and the nuclear weapons of France and the UK? Seriously? So the Germans would love to invade everyone again, and only don't do that because they fear the mighty British? You are living in a fantasy world. Wake up. Go visit Germany. Talk to them. Read about the origins of the EU, about the Coal and Steel Community. Read what Churchill thought about it.

      --
      entropy happens
    31. Re:Every intelligent person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you belong in jail then, since you don't have any specific plans anyways?

    32. Re:Every intelligent person by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 0, Interesting

      That is so tragic. Why even bother voting? Let's just go back to the good old days when rulers told us what to do and to shut the hell up. People DO become disillusioned by this sort of thing and it DOES have an effect. Countries have chosen to move away from a representative government before and it never goes well for them.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    33. Re: Every intelligent person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny how often Brexiters feel all superior with actually nothing to offer. Well done on picking a side and all but you'd shit yourself if you actually had to make your choices work

    34. Re:Every intelligent person by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2

      I notice also that large non-EU economies are tripping over themselves to position for new trade deals with the UK.

      Of course they are. That's because the bit of 'free trade' that politicians don't often talk about is free movement of capital. While the pound is weak, any country that has a treaty that permits free movement of capital is in a position to buy up British assets at bargain basement prices. We've already seen a big spike in foreign investments in UK property since the referendum, which has made the housing shortage even worse. Or was 'foreign ownership of Britain' what you meant by 'independence'?

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    35. Re:Every intelligent person by allcoolnameswheretak · · Score: 2

      Some of us aren't quite so keen to live in a Germany-dominated super state

      Perhaps you should. Germany is functioning quite well. Very little corruption, low unemployment, booming economy, not as many brain-dead, fear-mongering tabloids as in the UK (just one), healthy multi-party democratic system of federal states, clean cities and pro natural environment policies promoting renewable energy sources, good internet connections, practically no religious bigotry or nationalist extremism... also, not as snobbish and self-absorbed as some of our friendly neighbours... ^_^

      We could use some of your sense of humor though.

    36. Re:Every intelligent person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Whining like a whore from the third world won't really get you anywhere, and this holds both for you and the desperate pro-EU minority that have been flooding the internet for more than one month (fake bot-powered petitions, immigrant-packed "rallies", etc...). Votes were cast and a decision was taken. There were two choices: being "european" (whatever that means) or british. Being "multicultural" (i.e., full of immigrants) or not. Sharing sovereignty or not. People chose the latter. You lost, you've been defeated, bow down and put some concrete in your mouth.

    37. Re:Every intelligent person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Wut? The EU is a complete disaster. The worlds largest single economic block that has routinely failed to negotiate trade deals with half the world? That proposes parliamentary democracy should consist of a round table of industrialists proposing legislation to a democratically unaccountable commission? That despite increasing automation being forecast to reduce employment persists with an insane, open-door immigration policy? That created an ill conceived monetary union resulting in the gradual and ongoing bankruptcy of it's southern nations? To say nothing of insolvent Italian banks and the worlds "most systematically dangerous" German bank whose derivatives exposure is somewhere around global GDP.

      Oh, actually it doesn't sound too bad. We should definitely keep chugging the EU kool-aid and get right back to charging towards the edge of that cliff!

    38. Re:Every intelligent person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      The EU is very dismissive of the concept of democracy in general. Democracy gets in the way of what the EU wants to do. It's why they have no problem forcing people to re-vote if the desired outcome isn't reached. Or appointing governments to run countries that are not elected by the people. It's why Junker talks about democracy like it's something stuck to the bottom of his shoe.

      The fact that most pro-EU remain voters after the referendum reacted with predictable "well that vote didn't count" or "let's have a do over!" should have come as no surprise to anyone.

      Everybody does not hope May and the EU can keep Britain as part of the EU. If everyone wanted that a majority of the population would not have voted to leave. The public will not forget about the election (I assume tsa means referendum?) because people have been clamouring for this result for years if not decades. EU memebership benefitted some aspects of society in the UK, but impacted a lot of people negatively. It's really good for the rich and powerful though so you don't often hear about the rest of it.

    39. Re:Every intelligent person by Zocalo · · Score: 2

      Yes, some impacts were undeniably immediate. Most obviously that Sterling dropped 10%, which is a huge loss, but despite that the FTSE lept up (probably a bubble, but still). For pretty much for every negative indicator, you can find a contrary one if you look, so hardly the doom and gloom Remain was claiming, but not quite the brave new world being touted by Leave either - the reality was somewhere between the two extremes; that shouldn't be surprising to anyone with any sense. I agree that the uncertainty obviously doesn't help at all, but until we get a better feel for what BrExit is actually going to entail, or even *might* actually entail, the best you can do is start planning for various contingencies and getting prepared to bunker down, just in case. Best get used to that uncertainty though; the golden rule of negotiation is not to put your cards on the table too soon, so I'd not expect much clarity on the revised terms of the UK-EU relationship until long after Article 50 gets invoked. Until then, what else can you do but Keep Calm and Carry On - and make sure you've got a plan if things don't work out?

      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
    40. Re:Every intelligent person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Most people aren't freaking out about it because most people wanted it. Most people are happy with the result.

      That's why we left. The majority wanted it. Not becuase people don't have the energy.

      That's kind of the whole point of doing things democratically. Which is probobly why the EU looks on democracy like a puddle of sick on their doorstep on a sunday morning.

    41. Re:Every intelligent person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      If Cameron had said, *before* the referendum, that, "In the event that the country votes to leave the EU, I will stand aside to make way for a new Leader who can take on the Article 50 negotiations in good faith," then it would have been fair to expect the Leave camp to have a structure and plan in place.

      It would have been entirely naive to expect that given that it is completely and utterly impossible. If Cameron had said he would stand down after the vote a new leader of the conservative party would still need to be elected. They couldn't be elected until the vote was lost. The policy of the new leader couldn't be set by a bunch of leave campaigners who may or may not become leader in the post-referendum government.

      If you wanted that level of clarity then the referendum question could never have given it, and you should have pushed for a general election with one party proposing a pro-leave manifesto with clear policy OR a very clear referendum question with the terms of exit defined within it "Do you vote to leave the EU with membership ending within 2 years, the return of full immigration control to the UK government (insert any other keys points here)".

    42. Re:Every intelligent person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some of us aren't quite so keen to live in a Germany-dominated super state.

      You idiot, that's the whole point of why you had to not only stay in the EU, but also stop being a "special case" on everything and actually participate. Because you have let Germany take over and it is slowly indeed becoming a German-dominated super state. Yeah, let Germany go unchecked, see how well that went last time...

    43. Re:Every intelligent person by Andreas+Mayer · · Score: 2

      That's why we left.

      You didn't leave yet.

      Whatever happened because of the decision is just in anticipation of what is yet to come. Things will get worse.

    44. Re:Every intelligent person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "As a convinced european" you might start asking yourself why Euroscepic parties are literally skyrocketing in the polls everywhere in europe (Five Star Movement and Lega Nord in Italy, Front National in France, Freedom Party in the Netherlands, FPO in Austria, and so many others that I cannot even remember), with many that are set to win the next general elections in their own countries with the promise of holding Brexit-style referendums. Let's not forget other recent referendums with eurosceptic triumphs over the last 12 months: in Greece on the financial support program (whose result was shamefully ignored by Tsipras), in Denmark on judicial cooperation inside the EU, and in the Netherlands on the EU agreement with Ukraine (turned into a de facto battle between pro and anti EU). In every case the anti-EU side won. This is a domino-effect, you can forget it is limited to Britain.

      Sorry, the idea of building a country from 28 different Nations - each with its own ethnicity, culture, language, and identity - is purely schizoid and doomed to failure, let alone when the main supporters are bankers, germans, and freemasons.

      Your dream is ending where it belongs: to the Landfill of History, together with other failed ideologies and dreams. And their supporters.

    45. Re:Every intelligent person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Matt Ridley pointed out that most scientists are misinformed about how EU science funding works. You don't have to be in the EU.

      If the most educated people in the country are misinformed, what about the rest :/

    46. Re:Every intelligent person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The British civilization is the greatest that the world has ever known. BG will do fine as an independent country.

    47. Re:Every intelligent person by umghhh · · Score: 1

      The bad losers are then brexiters who (at least some of them) being pissed of about being losers added 'bad' to that and voted brexit. You have two folks in your country - you may have much in common besides the flag and royal family but not much that you would agree upon. The solutions tried before also in other countries are: civil unrest up to civil war or separation movements but also political discourse that allows both sides to understand each other and fix divisions, fix the problems and go on about the business. Throwing verbal abuse at each other is rather childish and a sign of 'bad losers'. The fact is that huge part of the living population in UK voted for a drastic measure which you claim would be a disaster. So you claim these people are morons. How about trying to understand the reasons of that decision a one that goes a little further than claiming they were morons or they were lied to as both sides are full of morons and lied like hell at least the way I could see from the continent.

    48. Re:Every intelligent person by jeremyp · · Score: 2

      After what happened in Greece, Ireland and Portugal, if the EU insists on any new members joining the Euro, they'll be laughed out of the room. The EU is a great project, the Euro is a fucked up disaster.

      --
      All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
    49. Re:Every intelligent person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      erhaps you should. Germany is functioning quite well. Very little corruption...

      ...cancer-inducing cars, massive increase in wealth inequality as a result of the Haartz reforms, a banking system on the verge of bankruptcy (I hope you're not a DB customer), a terrorist attack per week by your "refugees", 1.5 million turkish immigrants, a massive pro-Erdogan rally which was hold yesterday (maybe your "non-fear-mongering" press intentionally forgot to report on it), and the fame of being probably the (aesthetically) ugliest country in the west (if I think about a beautiful place to visit I think of Rome, Paris, Florence, etc..., surely not Berlin or Munich).

      And all over europe, eurosceptic parties are skyrocketing in the polls (Austria, Italy, France, the Netherlands), mostly for one specific reason: they talk bad about you. You might want to start asking yourself why.

    50. Re:Every intelligent person by umghhh · · Score: 1

      The northern Europe tolerant values are I think just an illusion - there is a sizable minority in each of the countries you may mean that has strong views especially about uncontrolled immigration of millions especially of young men who coming mostly from certain places have shown to be less than willing to incorporate Western culture because they consider it perverse and corrupt.

    51. Re:Every intelligent person by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      As a convinced European I find it highly amusing that the main "leave" campaign guys are now running away and officially stating that they have no idea what they actually planned (Yeah, we heavily lied in order to get you to approve a plan which we don't have, because it does not make any deeper sense).

      As someone that listens to both European Parliament, Parliament of the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland assembly and the house of commons. I have only noticed increased participation of leave politicians. Why does our information conflict with each other?

      Schengen zone

      That would violate the Good Friday agreement with the Republic of Ireland. I think you will find where Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland are concerned, they would be willing to break EU rules over going back into troubles.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    52. Re:Every intelligent person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least you still got Canada...

    53. Re:Every intelligent person by jeremyp · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Democracy isn't just having votes. Democracy will not work unless the people making the decisions are well informed about the issues.

      There was nothing democratic about the referendum given the level of misinformation being peddled by the anti-EU media. Under normal circumstances, the UK is a representative democracy: we elect people to represent us and make the decisions, then we fire them when they screw up badly enough to notice. That works because ordinary people don't have the time or resources to do the research to make the right decisions.

      This referendum was an unnecessary and unmitigated disaster. Too many people had no real idea of the benefits and costs of the EU. For instance, both Cornwall and Wales voted decisively to Leave and both are in receipt of billions of pounds of EU grants as deprived areas. Now they are begging the government to replace the funding, but that is by no means a given.

      --
      All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
    54. Re:Every intelligent person by jeremyp · · Score: 1

      I don't think you do want some of our sense of humour. Right now I am thinking it's so well developed because if we didn't laugh, we'd have to cry.

      --
      All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
    55. Re:Every intelligent person by moronoxyd · · Score: 2

      In the meantime we've just been getting on with it, the sky has yet to fall, the sun still rises most morning and dogs and cats have yet to work out their interpersonal issues.

      You are aware that the UK has yet to leave the EU, right?
      The real problems will arise once the connections are severed and the UK has to stand on it's own.

    56. Re:Every intelligent person by umghhh · · Score: 1

      hey comrade - the current policy is that it is Putin that invades. The whole cold war of which you may be aware was about the Ruskis (who possibly were as scared shitless about the West as the West was about the Ruskis). Besides - the lack of wars in Europe was not only because of suppressing German militarism by binding it to the bigger powers but also because of oppression in the Balkans and because of ethnic cleansing after the war in the east. The ethnic cleansing is not rally recoverable but as soon as oppression in Balkans was lifted they started killing each other. Our economic war with Russia resulted in hot war in Ukraine. Lots of things that you did not care to consider or? The Germans have indeed were bound to France and the rest with Common Market but also with massive propaganda work at schools and trough media. Besides quite some young Germans migrated to US after the war so the population pressure decreased making Germans less likely to go to war now. If we get few more million citizens from Maghreb tho we may see how that changes. No war with Germans was part of cold war scheme and part hard work on the side of Germans to subdue the militarism. Gosh Germans did not dare to sing their anthem at the international football matches till lately. Not all of it is then your holy EU. Besides common market as it was in the 50ties has changed and became a political institution without transparency and legitimacy. There is a reason why previous referendum in UK went the other way - don't you think?
      In other words both camps lie like hell and bend the facts. That makes me think that not all is good in the EU camp.

    57. Re:Every intelligent person by moronoxyd · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Or appointing governments to run countries that are not elected by the people.

      Can you give an actual, real-world example for the EU appointing some country's government?

      The fact that most pro-EU remain voters after the referendum reacted with predictable "well that vote didn't count" or "let's have a do over!" should have come as no surprise to anyone.

      Yeah... except that the petition for a do-over was opened by a pro-Leave voter and opened BEFORE the referendum.
      But why should facts matter, right?

      If everyone wanted that a majority of the population would not have voted to leave.

      Um... you're assuming that everyone was fully informed and aware of all the consequences while voting.
      But we heard enough voices of people who voted leave and then started to realize what benefits they're getting from the EU that they might lose.
      People change their mind all the time.

      EU memebership benefitted some aspects of society in the UK, but impacted a lot of people negatively. It's really good for the rich and powerful though so you don't often hear about the rest of it.

      Cornwall are the rich and powerful?
      The farmes who need the subsidies are rich and powerful?
      The scientists that may loose funding are rich and powerful?

      You are certainly -ful of something...

    58. Re:Every intelligent person by Ash-Fox · · Score: 2

      I used to live in Germany as a foreigner.

      Very little corruption

      Definitely, I don't recall seeing it in Germany (nor the UK). I did see it when I was living in other countries like Czech Republic and Poland.

      low unemployment

      The employment figures come from people who are on benefits and seeking work. I actually couldn't get on this system when I was in Germany, therefore I would never have been counted in this number. It leads one to wonder what the true statistic is.

      not as many brain-dead, fear-mongering tabloids

      Absolutely true!

      clean cities

      Cleanish... Sweden takes it to a whole new standard, at least when I was living there.

      pro natural environment policies promoting renewable energy sources

      I'm actually against this because I genuinely believe these are unsustainable fantasies with the current technologies. Being able to power the nation for an hour because the wind was just right for an extreme cost is ridiculous. I genuinely think the only practical sustainable renewable energy source we have at the moment are Generation 4 nuclear reactors (which Germany is against), that can reuse nuclear waste until it is inert and avoid the issues of light water reactors that have active cooling systems (Generation 4 have passive cooling mechanisms and safety features to make it improbable to melt down).

      good internet connections

      Mobile Internet is however ridiculously expensive over there compared to the UK. I have unlimited Internet for 23GBP per month over here on my mobile. When I was last in Germany, there weren't even unlimited offerings and the highest sim-only plan was something around 80EUR / month.

      practically no religious bigotry or nationalist extremism

      I do remember clearly the Turkish people calling Germans "Nazis" when they didn't get their way and politically correct Germans trying to bend over backwards to adhere to their requests. I also remember the graffiti tagging against Turks (which the city tried to clean up immediately whenever it happened).

      not as snobbish and self-absorbed as some of our friendly neighbours

      I honestly find it varies where you are in the UK and Germany too, I've had many varied experiences. But, if I didn't like Germans, my boyfriend wouldn't be one.

      Germany certainly is a good place to move to, but, what catches foreigners out is that there is a general expectation that you have gone to university and have university qualifications before you can get most jobs.

      The irony here is that I have a job history of delivering some large projects (successfully) and I am considered the only SME in Europe for certain technologies, but I wouldn't be able to get a job outside of maybe a Turkish fast-food restaurant without having some university qualification in Germany.

      If you're intending to move to Germany, you better make sure you get that sorted in Germany or prior before getting a job.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    59. Re: Every intelligent person by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      Which half of the world are you talking about?

    60. Re:Every intelligent person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Brexit, more than anything else, was a two-fingered gesture to the political establishment by 51% of the people in the UK and in the EU whose lack of democracy is somewhat breathtaking.

      There you go fixed that for you.

      Don't you think that's a bit funny when it's coming from a person on an island that doesn't even get to vote on the second house of government, the lords, that have a good chunk of power?

    61. Re:Every intelligent person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The truth is apparently fear-mongering. But hey who needs facts.

      Why are you remainers so bitter that the doom and gloom you predicted did not happen? The leavers were fear-mongering? Weren't the remainers also fear-mongering?

      It seems that you guys are just upset that:
      a) The (slim) majority disagreed with you, and
      b) All indications are that it won't be the catastrophe you predicted.

      Honestly, now it just looks like the losers are whining that they want a do-over until they get the "right" result. Because you guys can't have people thinking wrong thoughts, now can you?

    62. Re:Every intelligent person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am not convinced. It seems to me that to win a debate of this sort there should be an onus on the Brexiters to put forward a plan that would allow the voters to decide which course was best. That the Brexiters didn't reflects their lack of a clear view of the relationship; that they won without it reflects the lack of interest of the voters in the relationship with the EU. My view, for what it's worth, is that a lot of people wanted to give the Government a bit of feedback on their experience of austerity, inequalities in income and fairness.

    63. Re: Every intelligent person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which half of the world are you talking about?

      Turn of phrase; the light green, salmon pink and grey areas on this easily findable map

    64. Re:Every intelligent person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed. But if you want the EU to fund the work you need to get an agreement in place to do so. Will that be a priority for the UK government before the Article 50 process completes? If there's no agreement it'll come down to the national Government provide funding. And HMT is as generous with funding as Starbucks is with tax-paying.

    65. Re:Every intelligent person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm glad that you're a common limp wrist who finds value in the "join the collective or die" mindset that is running rampant over a Europe that is currently in a tailspin itself without the benefit of the British.

      Keep sucking that Muslim dick and Greek debt.

    66. Re:Every intelligent person by Malc · · Score: 1

      " Some of us aren't quite so keen to live in a Germany-dominated super state. It didn't work out too well last time"

      You sound like one of those twits who goes on about two world wars and a world cup. Nevermind that Germany has won the World Cup three times and been runner-up four times since then - where the fuck have we been? Do you realise how stupid you sound with this kind of claptrap?

    67. Re:Every intelligent person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And there was me thinking they had cabinet jobs and were leading the exit negotiations.

    68. Re: Every intelligent person by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      The other half, naturally.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    69. Re:Every intelligent person by allcoolnameswheretak · · Score: 1

      ...cancer-inducing cars

      I haven't quite figured it out myself, but from what I heard is that while Diesel exhaust is worse, you need less fuel than with normal gas. So overall you get a net-win in both running costs and environmental impact.

      massive increase in wealth inequality as a result of the Haartz reforms

      Inequality has increased massively all across the world. Germany is one of the few countries in which it's actually not that bad and there is still a strong middle-class.

      a banking system on the verge of bankruptcy

      Exaggerating much?

      a terrorist attack per week by your "refugees"

      None of the recent attacks were perpetrated by a refugee. Also the impact of these incidents on overall society is exaggerated by the media.
      Also, I don't see the Turkish immigrants as a problem. Why should I? I'm also sort-of an immigrant myself (not Turkish though).
      There are indeed many new and hastily built "ugly" buildings in German cities. The unfortunate consequence of allied carpet bombing. But strange that you should mention Berlin or Munich, which are two of the nicest and most vibrant cities in Europe today.

    70. Re:Every intelligent person by meta-monkey · · Score: 2

      I think the Germans today are more like Nega-Nazis. They swung so far away from the whole Nazi "we're gonna invade and genocide people" and right to "we're going to invite our own invasion and get our own people genocided." They need to figure out this happy balance where you neither invade, nor welcome your own invasion. The UK is wise to distance themselves from people going through such mass insanity right now as the Germans are.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    71. Re:Every intelligent person by meta-monkey · · Score: 0

      You can win a campaign on lies and innuendo.

      But Remain lost...

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    72. Re:Every intelligent person by ytene · · Score: 1

      tsa,

      I can only hope that you *don't* realise the incredible danger in your comment. What you are saying is that the democratic process can (or should) be set aside if you don't like the result. That isn't just incredible, towering arrogance, it's the beginning of the slippery slope towards a totalitarian state.

      There is a saying, "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions."

      I am sure that if you had the chance to ask any of history's worst dictators, most ruthless tyrants, they would all tell you that they believed in what they were doing. [ Likely because they were all sociopaths, or psychopaths, or both.

      And: not "everybody" hopes that May will "do the sensible thing." 52% of the people who voted are expecting the Prime Minister to carry out her stated intention, which is to respect and honour a democratic vote and to invoke Article 50 and lead the UK out of the EU.

      I can understand and respect the fact that it wasn't your wish to leave, but living in a democracy means that you won't get what you want all of the time. Whatever else, please don't think that it's OK to set aside the democratic will of a country just because you don't agree. That's how nations are destroyed and (civil) wars start.

    73. Re:Every intelligent person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nothing especially wrong about bureaucracy

      Stockholm much?

    74. Re:Every intelligent person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is so tragic. Why even bother voting? Let's just go back to the good old days when rulers told us what to do and to shut the hell up. People DO become disillusioned by this sort of thing and it DOES have an effect. Countries have chosen to move away from a representative government before and it never goes well for them.

      Exactly when was a more representative government for the UK on the table? 2011 when it was rejected?

      People in the UK should disillusioned already, their government is already poor at representing them. It's as bad as the US, and there's little hope of reform.

    75. Re:Every intelligent person by horza · · Score: 1

      Agreed. The reason the referendum result was roughly 50/50 is because the advantages and disadvantages are about that. Both Remain and Leave have winners and losers. Before the vote I thought Remain was best, post vote I can now see why Leave might be better.

      The decision will be as good or as bad as we make it. A Remain vote would be for the status quo, not very good but at least you know where you are. The Leave could be a massive boost to the UK, or set it back it back if not handled properly. The fate of the UK is in its own hands. And that is the nice thing about it.

      Phillip.

    76. Re:Every intelligent person by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      and in the EU whose lack of democracy is somewhat breathtaking.
      There is no lack of democracy in the EU.

      However the understanding how the EU works is breathtaking bad.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    77. Re:Every intelligent person by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      do-over until they get the "right" result

      That's the way it works in the US. See DMCA and various trade agreements.

    78. Re: Every intelligent person by horza · · Score: 1

      People are making it work. UK isn't going to war with the EU, just shuffling around a bit of legal paperwork. In the mean time, for the next few years things will keep on ticking over exactly as they are now.

      Phillip.

    79. Re:Every intelligent person by myowntrueself · · Score: 1, Insightful

      in Britain should be freaking out about the brexit.

      As a convinced European I find it highly amusing that the main "leave" campaign guys are now running away and officially stating that they have no idea what they actually planned (Yeah, we heavily lied in order to get you to approve a plan which we don't have, because it does not make any deeper sense).

      I hope that the EU gives them choice between coming back without any special status, joining the Euro and the Schengen zone or remaining in "splendid isolation". In case of the latter: not terrible for the rest of the EU - one competitor is gone, and in 30 years there will be a new developing country with cheap labor.

      The thing is I can kind of understand why this has happened; the *English*, overall, never liked to think of themselves as being part of something bigger than themselves. They always feel more comfortable being the big deal. Thats why they always demanded special status in the EU. Thats why they had the Empire. Thats why they had the British Commonwealth (they weren't *part* of the British Commonwealth; they WERE the British Commonwealth and all the other nations were *seen* as just hangers on, not even really independent. Now its the Commonwealth of Nations and I bet they are not so interested in it any more).

      Even within the United Kingdom, the English don't like to see themselves as part of something bigger than themselves; even within that context they like to see themselves as THE big thing and Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland are just 'hangers on'.

      This is beautifully illustrated by the voting patterns in the Brexit referendum; Scots and Northern Irish and the more Welsh parts of Wales voted to remain. (The rest of Wales is just too dominated by the English, I bet they still refer to themselves as 'Welsh', which comes from a Saxon word for 'foreigner'. Yes, the Welsh are foreigners in their own land).

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    80. Re:Every intelligent person by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

      You don't have to be in the EU.

      You do if you want to lead the project. So if Britain leaves it can get funding to take part in EU projects lead by EU scientists but it can never lead those projects itself. I expect this will cause many leaders in science to start thinking about a personal "brexit" plan of their own and these are the people who drive research programs and attract scientists from around the world.

    81. Re:Every intelligent person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I haven't quite figured it out myself, but from what I heard is that while Diesel exhaust is worse, you need less fuel than with normal gas.

      I was obviously referring to the Volkswagen emission scandal.

      Exaggerating much?

      Not at all: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/...

      None of the recent attacks were perpetrated by a refugee.

      You don't even read the news about the country you claim to live in?
      http://www.reuters.com/article...

      strange that you should mention Berlin or Munich, which are two of the nicest and most vibrant cities in Europe today.

      I don't know what you mean with "vibrant". I mentioned the aesthetics. Alert me when you see something comparable to the Trevi Fountain in "vibrant" Munich.

      I'm also sort-of an immigrant myself

      Which explains why you're pro-EU (although many actual germans are, since they are the only europeans who have benefited from the membership), and maybe also why you have no problems with Turks flooding the country you're living in.

    82. Re:Every intelligent person by dave420 · · Score: 1

      What? Cameron was negotiating a better deal with the EU until right up to the referendum taking place. That deal was immediately shit-canned. "Enact a policy on arrangements" - that means precisely nothing. Or do you mean "policy" like "drop out of the world's single market and re-apply for a worse position"?

    83. Re:Every intelligent person by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      proposing legislation to a democratically unaccountable commission?
      The commission is not more or less democratic or undemocratic or accountable for than your ministry/cabinet is.

      Before ranting you should finally figure what the commission is, how it is set up and what power it has.

      For starters: it has no power at all. All laws are made by the parliament. And those representives you are supposed to vote for!

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    84. Re:Every intelligent person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's simply saying
      "we (great brittain) want to make our own decisions, instead of having an increasing number of decisions made in brussels"

      personally I think that's an emminently sane stance, and it's completely orthogonal on what decisions are then ultimately made

      besides everyone with any brains knew that a brexit would cause _short_term_ economic loss,
      wether it will be again in the medium and long term...
      we'll just have to wait 10-15 years to know

    85. Re:Every intelligent person by allcoolnameswheretak · · Score: 3, Informative

      You said

      a terrorist attack per week by your "refugees"

      The Syrian who killed a woman was hardly a terrorist attack. They knew each other and it was likely a personal issue due to some argument, and the guy went bonkers. Men killing women, especially their wives or girlfriends unfortunately happens a thousandfold all across the world.
      The Afghan in the train attack was not a refugee and the German-Iranian obviously wasn't either, and in fact the latter was a right-wing attack motivated against immigration, and he only killed foreign-looking people.

      So, no terrorist attack by a refugee so far.

      Alert me when you see something comparable to the Trevi Fountain in "vibrant" Munich

      Now you're just trolling... come on. Show me somethign comparable to the Trevi Fountain in London, Stockholm, Dublin...

    86. Re:Every intelligent person by dave420 · · Score: 2

      You are ignoring the trade deals currently in the making. It's rather difficult to negotiate trade deals between the largest single market in the world, comprising of many member states, and anyone else. This is not difficult to understand. The EU is demonstrably not a complete disaster. You claiming it is then listing a few bizarre claims does not an argument make.

    87. Re:Every intelligent person by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Your argument would make sense if every voter was well-informed. As that is demonstrably not the case, your argument can be safely ignored. The fate of the UK is not in its own hands - it relies massively on the EU for trade, and now has to abide by EU rules without having any say. It also will be entering trade negotiations with other countries on a much weaker standing (being a relatively small country compared to a leading member of the world's largest single market), having to deal with their demands to get a trade agreement. So your "nice thing about it" doesn't even exist, as it's a fantasy used to sway the opinions of people who put nebulous ideas of identity before fact. You appear to be one of those people. Thanks for your intellectual laziness.

    88. Re:Every intelligent person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you give an actual, real-world example for the EU appointing some country's government?

      Greece (yeah yeah, technically they still have a government, they just no longer have the power to make law without the consent of the troika, after the syriza sold out and gave in despite the referendum result)

    89. Re:Every intelligent person by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      The EU has to punish Britain. After all, the GrExit, the ItExit and the SpExit were only stopped by threatening to destroy their economies in retaliation. If the BrExit goes by with no consequences, the southern part of the EU will peel away, and Greece will start paying back its debt in drachmas.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    90. Re: Every intelligent person by dave420 · · Score: 1

      It's a bit more complicated than that, obviously. EU laws will have to be ripped from the lawbooks (which requires a lot of time and money), trade deals will have to be re-negotiated with all our trading partners, and a large number of EU workers will be debating leaving (which is rather problematic seeing as about 55,000 NHS workers in England alone are EU citizens).

      You keep on saying things which make you sound completely ignorant of what's actually happening. You gloss over incredibly important, complicated parts of the process, and hand-waive away any criticism. Then you look lovingly into your crystal ball and perform the miracle of sooth-saying, and expect people to take you seriously. Your understanding of this is a joke.

    91. Re:Every intelligent person by dave420 · · Score: 1

      You don't seem to understand just how much of Britain's standing is directly dependent on its membership of the EU. You seem to assume all the benefits of the EU will continue, and all the problems Britain will face are just abject scaremongering. You also seem to also think the EU and UK are similar in sizes, and that any hurt will be similar on both sides.You don't seem to well-informed about any of this. Your excuses might sound good to you, but to anyone with more than a passing familiarity with this subject will see the utterances of a confused individual. I hope you didn't vote, as you clearly don't know what you voted for.

    92. Re:Every intelligent person by fireylord · · Score: 2

      "A Remain vote would be for the status quo, not very good but at least you know where you are"

      Economically at least the status quo was looking pretty good actually.

      Historically continuousy very low inflation, Historically highest ever employment in actual numbers and very high percentage, and very stable healthy growth in overall standards of living.

      The 'problems' blamed on the 'foreigners' are, in fact, self inflicted

      High rents due to a completely unbalanced and unfair private rental system and the continued destruction of social housing, low levels of democratic accountability in Westminster due to a voting system rigged to support the establishment (and yes, this includes UKIP not getting any real representation in the houses of parliament), and immigration due to people wanting to come and *work* here despite the lack of housing options thanks to the economy. as above.

    93. Re:Every intelligent person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm voting against gravity. It's not up to _me_ to have a plan over how to get rid of it though, it's the gubbiment.

    94. Re:Every intelligent person by horza · · Score: 1

      Can you give an actual, real-world example for the EU appointing some country's government?

      The EU government, in Brussels, where their government over-rules the national one.

      Yeah... except that the petition for a do-over was opened by a pro-Leave voter and opened BEFORE the referendum.
      But why should facts matter, right?

      You talk about facts, then bring up a great statistical sample of... ONE PERSON???

      Um... you're assuming that everyone was fully informed and aware of all the consequences while voting.

      This is never the case. Not even in a general election. It is the best argument for abolishing democracy. But as Churchill once said, "Everything else we've tried is worse".

      But we heard enough voices of people who voted leave and then started to realize what benefits they're getting from the EU that they might lose.

      And also those that were told it would be gloom and disaster if they leave the EU, and are now all saying it is nowhere as bad as they thought it was going to be.

      Phillip.

    95. Re:Every intelligent person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The EU is a great project, the Euro is a fucked up disaster.

      I don't know about that. From what I have seen the Euro is just fine but Greece is a fucked up disaster.
      The corrupt politicians there just blamed the Euro after having robbed the people.

    96. Re:Every intelligent person by dave420 · · Score: 2

      What insanity? Of the one-million-plus people it rescued from danger (and shored up its ageing population with, ensuring a brighter future for anyone wishing to accept a state pension or rely on the state for assistance), the vast majority have been model citizens. The police statistics reflect this. Your argument is simply not grounded in reality. It seems you are not in Germany - I am, and have been since before this all kicked off. It might behove you to actually learn about what you speak of before vomiting hatred and fear everywhere. I didn't realise it took less than one 0.1% of a group of people to make you scared of the entire group! You sound scared.

    97. Re:Every intelligent person by dave420 · · Score: 2

      Bullshit. Areas with the least immigration are the ones that complain about it most. it's a cultural human thing - we are scared of "them" until we know they are more like "us" than we ever imagined. When we grow up not thinking of the various shades of skin around us as different, it stops mattering, as it should.

      Your arguments about "most of the time" being spent on inter-EU relations is bizarre, as sure it sounds on the surface like a right-old damning of the EU, but on closer inspection you're not actually saying anything. Noting quantified, nothing explained, nothing cited, just arguments about "them" and "other them" and "us" and so on. It's childish and untrue.

    98. Re:Every intelligent person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Matt Ridley pointed out that most scientists are misinformed about how EU science funding works. You don't have to be in the EU.

      No, but to be eligible for H2020 funding you either need to have a free trade and movement -deal with the EU, or be a third-world country. I'm guessing the Brexiteers are aiming for the latter option, which should be achievable in about 10 years at the current rate.

    99. Re:Every intelligent person by horza · · Score: 1

      given the level of misinformation being peddled by the anti-EU media

      Are you kidding? Did you not see the level of misinformation peddled by the Remain camp? They rolled out everyone from celebrities to the IMF, and even the American President Mr Obama, to say what a disaster it would be telling some real whoppers.. Some in the Leave camp may have published ropey information but there is NO WAY you can say it wasn't both sides peddling misinformation.

      The referendum was not unnecessary, it was an election pledge made by Mr Cameron and the public voted him into office with that being one of the promises he made. Mr Cameron has always been a man of integrity, and despite the great political risk he kept his promise. Ok it destroyed him. But he did what he thought was the right thing.

      Phillip.

    100. Re:Every intelligent person by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Because the vote was promised to stop the Conservatives losing too many votes to UKIP. The people in government who pushed for the referendum admitted they didn't want it to win, or even think it would. It's a side effect of the broken first-past-the-post system used in the UK, causing a political party to do something incredibly dangerous just to keep it relevant and in power. Referendums are never binding in the UK, so ignoring it would not be a step away from representative government, it would be a return to representative government where the people appointed to do what's best for the country actually do that, instead of pandering to whatever ill-informed opinion was most successfully vomited from newspapers (thanks, Murdoch!).

    101. Re:Every intelligent person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This person really has something against minorities... oh... wait...

    102. Re:Every intelligent person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A glass of white wine for the ladies. You were never confused?

    103. Re:Every intelligent person by stdarg · · Score: 1

      Model citizens? Check unemployment and welfare rates on refugees in Germany versus the native population. Read the educational literature being given to refugees ("rape is not okay, okay?"). When the mayor of Cologne's advice for avoiding rape by refugee men is "stay at least arm's length away" what does that say to you about refugee men? I have to wonder wtf you define as a model citizen.

    104. Re:Every intelligent person by horza · · Score: 1

      Have you been to Germany? I've driven through a number of times and have been surprised to see how similar it is to driving through England (except with nicer cars). Especially the suburbs where the houses and the shops look so familiar. They also love their pubs, with similar pub grub (but with no horse in their sausages). I was in Berlin yesterday and it's certainly not the prettiest of German cities but it's definitely not the ugliest in the west. If you drive through the large Turkish areas then you will get a bad impression. Then again if a tourist drove down Tooting Broadway they wouldn't think England the most elegant place in the world.

      If you think of Rome as a beautiful place to visit then maybe you should try? It's dirty, covered in graffiti, crime-ridden, people trying to force knocked-off goods on you every street corner. The banking system in Italy is on the verge of collapse too. Paris is nice but try going to Marseilles. See how long you can live there before you get your first beating.

      Merkel's immigration policy may have upset a lot of people and caused chaos across Europe, but that's not Germany as a people or a place.

      Phillip.

    105. Re:Every intelligent person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't have to be in the EU ... to apply.
      Good luck on getting it though. The UK has just giving the EU the finger, and then wants to go apply for funding?

    106. Re:Every intelligent person by fireylord · · Score: 2

      Or appointing governments to run countries that are not elected by the people.

      Can you give an actual, real-world example for the EU appointing some country's government?

      Well to be fair he may be referring to the disgraceful way Greek democracy was subverted.

      The fact that most pro-EU remain voters after the referendum reacted with predictable "well that vote didn't count" or "let's have a do over!" should have come as no surprise to anyone.

      Yeah... except that the petition for a do-over was opened by a pro-Leave voter and opened BEFORE the referendum. But why should facts matter, right?

      That whole petition thing was frankly daft. One thing a democratic country can't start doing is catering for those who can't be bothered to get their finger out and make their opinion count. Personally I'm all for compulsory voting- of course if in any voting situation nothing that was on offer worked for you then spoiling your ballot paper is to be encouraged.

      If everyone wanted that a majority of the population would not have voted to leave.

      Um... you're assuming that everyone was fully informed and aware of all the consequences while voting. But we heard enough voices of people who voted leave and then started to realize what benefits they're getting from the EU that they might lose. People change their mind all the time.

      Yes indeed. Rather annoyingly the remain campaign missed the mark by miles, frankly because they didn't want to make the Houses of Parliament to look bad. This was a case of What has brussels ever done for us;

    107. Re:Every intelligent person by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      It was a bluff to get more from the EU. Unfortunately their own people called it.

      This.

      What a way to shoot yourself in the foot!

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    108. Re:Every intelligent person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We have had 45 years of lies about the EU and EEC before it. It has been consistently misrepresented.

      "It's just a common market." "There is no loss of sovereignty." "We have secured reforms." "This new treaty will counter the trend towards federalism."

      And so on. The referendum was long overdue. If it is painful now, that is because it should have taken place in the 1990s if not before. The europhiles in our government prevented us from having a say. It is because of them that leaving will be tough.

    109. Re:Every intelligent person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Before ranting you should finally figure what the commission is, how it is set up and what power it has.

      For starters: it has no power at all. All laws are made by the parliament. And those representives you are supposed to vote for!

      Right then, when was the public vote for Junker? He's not even an elected MEP! You say the commission has no power when in fact, it is only the commission that can propose legislation and they can overrule parliament. That seems like a lot of power to me.

      As stated, elected representatives in the EU parliament cannot propose legislation. It can "request" it from the commission and the commission can simply refuse. The parliament cannot dismiss a commissioner although it can fire the entire commission via unanimous vote. Clearly this power was not intended to ever be used. To top it all, EU executives have life-long immunity from prosecution. It is indisputable fact that the Commission is neither democratically nor legally accountable for it's actions.

      The democratic requirements for EU membership of nation states are spelt out in the Copenhagen Criteria. One of these criteria is accessibility to government at all levels. We could debate the meaning of "accessible" but it's not an uncommon opinion that the EU would fail it's own democratic requirements for membership with itself!

      Any specific fact you disagree with, or is it you that should "figure out" what the commission is?

    110. Re: Every intelligent person by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      That's a map of areas that have free trade agreements (i.e. unregulated flow of capital), not the map of areas that have any trade agreements. There are quite a few places on that map that do have free trade agreements where at least one side probably doesn't see a benefit.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    111. Re:Every intelligent person by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      You don't have to be... but it sure helps. Some of my colleagues just had a proposal rejected with positive reviews from all of the reviewers, and a note saying that this time, for the first time, 'other factors' were considered when evaluating EU grants. Other colleagues have seen institutions in the EU decide that it's too high risk to have partner institutions in the UK on grant applications, which is problematic given that a load of EU funding requires multiple collaborating institutions in different countries. And that's before we even invoke Article 50 - do you think it will become easier after that?

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    112. Re:Every intelligent person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everybody hopes May et al., together with the EU will now do the sensible thing and keep the UK in the EU when the public has forgotten about the election.

      "Everybody" who? Immigrants like you? You do realize that nobody gives a fuck if you're forced to go back to your country, don't you?

    113. Re:Every intelligent person by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      It absolutely was the Brexit camp's responsibility to have a plan. How can people make an informed decision if they don't know what the plan is? How could they make a costed, fact based, specific proposal without a plan?

      They didn't create a plan because they knew it would be a disaster. Farage just wanted out at any cost, and the Tory supporters were just manoeuvring to be in the best position for the post-vote shake-up. They based their campaign on fears about immigration, some vague promises to spend untold billions on people's favourite things, and a bit of flag waving.

      It's backfired badly for most of them.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    114. Re:Every intelligent person by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      Why would I be scared? I don't live in the future Caliphate of al-Germani.

      You swallowed your propaganda media hard, Hans. These people are illiterate in their own language. They are not employed, and are not employable. They are not German, will never be German, and don't want to be German. They want to be Muslim. And they do breed like rabbits. Their birthrates are high. Yours are looooowwwww. Demographics are destiny, so, just wait 30 years and we'll see how scared you are then, when you're in the nursing home and think those strapping Syrian boys you imported are going to care for you. They're not. They don't give a shit about you.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    115. Re:Every intelligent person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For instance, both Cornwall and Wales voted decisively to Leave and both are in receipt of billions of pounds of EU grants as deprived areas

      The UK was a net contributor to the EU, you mentally diseased progressive. No funds cannot be replaced.

      Under normal circumstances...

      Under "normal circumstances", those who advocate the loss of sovereignty of their own country, or even its dissolution into a bigger one, are called traitors and are targeted by intelligence services. Those "normal circumstances" have been somehow suspended from 1975 to 2016 in the UK. Luckily, now they are coming back.

    116. Re:Every intelligent person by meta-monkey · · Score: 2

      Statistics and facts are racist, don't you know?

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    117. Re:Every intelligent person by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      There should be another vote, either a general election or a referendum, once negotiations have concluded. When we know for certain what the deal is. Sure, there will still be plenty of lies and economic illiteracy floating about, but the government will have had to either commit to funding things at EU levels or admit that the budgets will be slashed.

      The almost inevitable 2nd Scottish independence referendum will give us an opportunity to debate these things even if the rUK is denied a vote. Presumably that will have to be sooner rather than later due to the 2 year deadline once Article 50 is triggered. The union probably has less than 3 years left.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    118. Re:Every intelligent person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Ordinary people" = "people who work their asses off to pay the taxes that the elected official will waste". I understand that wannabe elite members (by the way, you're part of the commoners, get over it) like to look down on the Real People who actually make nations work despite their leaders wasting resources on hockneyed schemes and utopian plans, but, really, you're part of us "the masses". Were you to even try to bother one of the real elite, security would bash your face in. Don't pretend like you belong among the ivory tower dwellers, the fact that you don't have a job because you don't like to work doesn't make you one of them.

    119. Re:Every intelligent person by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      That doesn't make any sense. The EU bureaucracy is smaller than many local councils in the UK. It's microscopic compared to the US federal government. If you are correct then the US and China, with their vast sprawling bureaucracies should be stagnating, unable to grow or handle problems like the 2008 financial crisis. Yet the US, which was one of the worst of the exposure to the crisis, also had one of the best responses and got back into growth relatively quickly.

      You are right though, for most people it comes down to xenophobia and decades of being fed lies. When people pointed out some of the bullshit Boris was saying during the campaign, people actually defended him and said they though it was true! As if there is no such thing as a falsifiable fact, something you can verify is true for yourself by simply reading the document he was referring to.

      Blaming the EU has become a religion, full of dogma. People prefer to live in denial instead of adjusting their beliefs.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    120. Re:Every intelligent person by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      in Britain should be freaking out about the brexit.

      Freaking out isn't something British really do. "Keep calm and carry on" and keep a stiff upper lip old chap, and all of that.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    121. Re:Every intelligent person by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      France seems to want to stick the knife in

      That's true but let's be honest, they're still bitter about Waterloo, and King Henry the 8th (remember Agincourt) and probably the Scarlet Pimpernel. The French always want to stick the knife in.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    122. Re:Every intelligent person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Switch to the wording you prefer: whether they are horrific murders or terrorist attacks, and whether they were committed by refugees or muslim immigrants, we are talking about three major criminal events in a couple of weeks, all committed by people that shouldn't have been allowed into Germany. Merkel's immigration policy has been proven a massive disaster, except for companies in search for cheap workers. And if all that had happened before june 23rd, Brexit would have won by 20 points at least, rather than 4.

      Coupled with the aesthetic issues and the emission scandal, I think I've proven that your first post was pure trolling.

    123. Re:Every intelligent person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People writing so much nonsense like you do not freak me out either.

    124. Re:Every intelligent person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are ignoring the trade deals currently in the making. It's rather difficult to negotiate trade deals between the largest single market in the world, comprising of many member states, and anyone else. This is not difficult to understand.

      I was not ignoring them, they are consistently derailed well prior to ratification. I also never claimed it was easy to negotiate a trade deal.

      The EU is demonstrably not a complete disaster. You claiming it is then listing a few bizarre claims does not an argument make.

      Which claims do you dispute or see as indicative of future success? Perhaps you can name some successful EU policies? How about the EU VAT regime which places onerous demands on international sellers? Perhaps some nonsense about Netflix and Amazon being legally coerced into making EU specific content, as if the capitalist concept of supply and demand is no longer relevant? Perhaps success just tends to happen without the EU taking every possible opportunity to stick it's nose into every possible orifice? Perhaps if they solely concentrated on the trade deals the ECC was originally mis-sold as, they would do a better job? Perhaps...

    125. Re:Every intelligent person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They swung so far away from the whole Nazi "we're gonna invade and genocide people" and right to "we're going to invite our own invasion and get our own people genocided."

      Looks like you swallowed the Nazi koolaid all right. Being German is not genetical, it is a state of mind. Naturally, it is easier to achieve when your parents are teching you, but the point is being for the ideals and principles this democracy is running on. Having large amounts of immigrants is a challenge because once they cluster and ghettoize it becomes much harder to teach them what being German is about and worth. Also, the German society is a highly educated one: education, including university education, is basically free and there are support programs enabling students even without wealthy parents to reach a university degree worth its name and working off their student debts in a reasonable amount of years.

      Bringing large numbers of immigrants, likely with severe language problems, up to speed with their education in order to have a reasonably good chance of integrating themselves into a working society also is a large challenge. This challenge is not fought with weapons and rape, so it is stupid xenophobic propaganda to talk about "genocide". Moving standards of living and education may be unpleasant but have nothing whatsoever to do with "genocide". This is just the kind of talk you'd expect from people like Goebbels and Trump.

    126. Re:Every intelligent person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agree with everything you say, with one exception. It wasn't for the "BrExit" camp to have a post-referendum plan. That was the government's job. All the snide comments regarding the apparent vacuum are in fact a misdirected reflection of the fact that Cameron, the playground bully, got a bloody nose and then decided to run home to his Mummy.

      Wait, what? That seems incredibly narrow-minded and unfair. It sounds very much like

      Person A: We really go to 100% renewable energies by 2017.
      Person B: Great, how should we do it.
      Person A: Oh, I'm just an ideas person. You go and figure it out, that's your job. Can you take a look a this whole world hunger thing while you are at it?

      The Remain campaign quoted numerous numbers and ideas (saving money for the NHS, reducing immigration, etc). This implies they either had some rough plan to source these numbers, unless they were blatantly lying and made them up whole-cloth. That's why so many people are angry. As they don't have a plan and claim to just be ideas-people, it looks increasingly like they were just lying.

      I'm not saying that you absolutely need to have a complete alternative to say something is bad. However, you should also absolutely be held to account if you put forth a major effort to change something and then succeed.

    127. Re:Every intelligent person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It wasn't for the "BrExit" camp to have a post-referendum plan. That was the government's job. All the snide comments regarding the apparent vacuum are in fact a misdirected reflection of the fact that Cameron, the playground bully, got a bloody nose and then decided to run home to his Mummy.

      So, what you're effectively saying is that the Leave campaign - the lot that were supposed to justify that this could happen and that it was The Right Thing To Do For The Country - even that it was feasible without bankrupting us? - were supposed to do it based on Camerons plan?

      Or was he supposed to justify it, even though he was against it?

      If he was supposed to write the plan, he could have just came forward and said that the plan was to "sever all ties with the European Union". (The political correspondant of one paper last week wrote that we'd voted to do this and the editor let it go to print...)

    128. Re:Every intelligent person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you been to Germany?

      Yes. And I didn't find it similar to England at all.

      I was in Berlin yesterday and it's certainly not the prettiest of German cities but it's definitely not the ugliest in the west. If you drive through the large Turkish areas then you will get a bad impression.

      Immigrants are everywhere in Germany. There are no specific "Turkish areas". And there's not a single building or area in Berlin that is known worldwide.

      If you think of Rome as a beautiful place to visit then maybe you should try?

      I did (several times), just like about 10 million international tourists every year, who obviously have a different opinion from you. That's also why hotels in Rome are far more expensive than in Berlin or Munich: it's called market value.

      Merkel's immigration policy may have upset a lot of people and caused chaos across Europe, but that's not Germany as a people or a place.

      Who elected Merkel, some guys from Afghanistan maybe?

    129. Re:Every intelligent person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To say nothing of insolvent Italian banks and the worlds "most systematically dangerous" German bank

      A phrase involving rocks and glass houses springs to mind...

    130. Re:Every intelligent person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > When the mayor of Cologne's advice for avoiding rape by refugee men is "stay at least arm's length away",

      she had no clue what exactly had happened because the police had not yet fully informed her about the scale of the issue.

      And a (small) number of "rape" cases have been debunked by now.

    131. Re:Every intelligent person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      EU membership clearly benefited the rich. Consider: since the referendum, the stock market has dropped, real estate has dropped, and the pound has dropped against other currencies. Guess who owns stocks, owns real estate, and goes on overseas holidays? It's not the poor.

      Arguments for Remain based on EU remittances to poorly-developed UK areas are specious: if they're worthwhile, then the correct move is to Leave anyway, and fund them (and more) from the money saved in EU contributions. The real argument for Remain was the access to the Common Market and consequent benefits to the private sector, which outweighed the costs of EU membership to the public sector. But these private-sector benefits flow mainly to the rich, who participate more fully in the international economy, hence the disgruntled poor voting to leave.

      The scientists that may loose funding are rich and powerful?

      I'm a scientist in the UK, and I have to admit that, while not exactly powerful, I'm richer than the average citizen of my age. And so yes, I do lose out from the Brexit (even ignoring the funding issue, which I expect can go either way).

    132. Re:Every intelligent person by Fragnet · · Score: 1

      Again, the problem here is you lack of imagination, not Brexit.

    133. Re:Every intelligent person by Fragnet · · Score: 1

      The government and civil service are working on a plan now. That's they're job. I have no idea why you think the UK, an independent country for 1,000 years notwithstanding our 40 year membership of the EU, is now incapable of governing itself. What a sad little mind you have.

    134. Re:Every intelligent person by Fragnet · · Score: 1

      Apart from the fact the EU is an utter disaster of course - something you Remainers conveniently forget.

    135. Re:Every intelligent person by Fragnet · · Score: 1

      Having a trade deal with a weaker standing is better than not having any trade deals at all because the EU is a corporate protection racket. I mean really, little Singapore has more trade deals than the EU.

    136. Re:Every intelligent person by Fragnet · · Score: 1

      Yes, because we didn't manage to stand on our own for the 1,000 years preceding our membership of the EU, did we.

    137. Re:Every intelligent person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You might want to compare your opinions with the rest of the planet, and verify whether they are somehow too bizarre to be publicly expressed. For example, your description of Rome sounds a little bit too harsh, given the fact that it was voted as "The Most Beautiful City in the World" by Rough Guides' readers: http://www.roughguides.com/gal...

      Ironically, Rough Guides belongs to Bertlesmann, the biggest german publisher.

    138. Re:Every intelligent person by Fragnet · · Score: 1

      France is locked into an artificially high exchange rate otherwise known as the Euro.

    139. Re:Every intelligent person by Fragnet · · Score: 1

      Are you suggesting it's impossible for us to pool resources and collaborate with the EU unless we're members of it? Things are better now. We can make the decision whether to pool resources on a case by case basis, in our own interests. Like every other independent country on the planet.

    140. Re:Every intelligent person by Fragnet · · Score: 1

      They will for you, yes. Every day we make a success of it, you'll be just that little bit more miserable.

    141. Re:Every intelligent person by Fragnet · · Score: 1

      They could do that before. Nothing to do with the EU.

    142. Re:Every intelligent person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... and we really gave a boost to democracy by getting ourselves an unelected PM.

      Just to be pedantic: Britons have never had an elected prime minister. That’s how the Westminster parliamentary system works. As an ex-colony, Canada works the same way: we vote for a parliament; we do not vote directly for a prime minister or cabinet.

      The head of state asks someone to form a government. By convention, that is the leader of the party which elected the most members to parliament to be prime minister. Again by convention, the prime minister is a member of the house, but there have been times when the Canadian prime minister was not (yet) an MP, and once when the Canadian prime minister was a senator not an MP.

      The prime minister then selects people to form the cabinet. Again by convention, cabinet members are members of the house, but there have been several times in my lifetime that Canadian cabinet ministers were senators not MPs.

      So, servicescope is right that Britain has an unelected prime minister after Brexit. But then again, it did before, and always has.

    143. Re:Every intelligent person by Fragnet · · Score: 1

      That's because the EU is breathtakingly Byzantine in its construction - deliberately so. And it's also why whenever in the past a country has voted against an EU treaty, they've been invited to vote again. Thankfully the UK has put a stop to this.

    144. Re:Every intelligent person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ordinary people don't have the time or resources to do the research to make the right decisions.

      This is a good argument for why people shouldn't be trusted to elect people to make decisions. Instead, they _might_ be trusted to elect people who will elect people to make decisions. Or better yet, to elect people qualified to do the research to elect people to elect people to make decisions.

    145. Re:Every intelligent person by Pentagram · · Score: 1

      The UK *was* the fifth biggest economy. Post-Brexit, the UK has fallen to be the sixth biggest economy.

    146. Re:Every intelligent person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what the hell is the status quo?

      Could Le Pen be elected in France next year?
      Will the Italian banks go bust?
      What will Germany do when Central Europe refuses to take any of the two million migrants?
      Will other countries have exit referendums?
      What will the next Euro crisis leave us with?
      How many more of our recently arrived citizens believe their Prophet want them to shoot, stab and behead us?

      The risk was clearly not wholly on the exit side.

    147. Re:Every intelligent person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it's about Germany.

      It's Germany that's the chief architect of the euro, and the bitter recession that's caused in just about all the Mediterranean countries - most notably Greece, but also Spain and Italy. (Cyprus got theirs out of the way early.) It's Germany that's spearheaded the grand plan to expand the EU eastward to the borders of Russia, with the entirely predictable results that we've already seen play out in Ukraine (and can expect to see in the Baltic States next year if Trump wins). It's Germany that incited the whole EU to stand on its legal rights when David Cameron went cap in hand to beg for concessions he could take back to his backbenchers.

      Angela Merkel, more than anyone else, is the architect of Brexit. Personally I think it's exactly what she was trying to achieve: she's realised how badly Germany is on the hook for the Eurozone's self-inflicted problems, and she's working towards a relatively-peaceful breakup of the whole thing. Best of luck to her, I say.

    148. Re:Every intelligent person by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Yes the lies on the exit camp were much more egregious like the flagship line of 350 million per week which was in fact a complete lie. So I guess your point is that the remain camp didn't lie enough to win?

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    149. Re:Every intelligent person by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      You don't seem to have realised that we haven't actually left yet. It's a bit stupid to claim that the downsides of leaving haven't happened before the leaving itself has actually happened.

      You're also a fool if you think I'm upset that terrible things have not yet happened.

      And finally, if you think there are no wrong thoughts then you're a moral relativist. I'm not.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    150. Re:Every intelligent person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NOBODY was "fully informed and aware of all the consequences while voting", and nobody ever will be. That's not what voting means, it doesn't involve a time machine.

      Look, I don't like it either, but the Leave side WON. That's how democracy works, you have a vote and then you act on it. You don't get to keep wringing your hands and saying "oh noes, they never meant it, it can't be right, let's do this instead".

      This thread is supposed to be about scientists. You'd think that scientists, of all people, would be familiar with the concept that reality is that which is measured. Well, the definitive measure of public opinion was the referendum. If you're still second-guessing that result, you should hand your scientist credentials in right now, because you're denying the only meaningful measurement you're ever going to get - there is no "more authoritative" answer than that, that was it.

    151. Re:Every intelligent person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Syrian who killed a woman was hardly a terrorist attack. They knew each other and it was likely a personal issue due to some argument, and the guy went bonkers. Men killing women, especially their wives or girlfriends unfortunately happens a thousandfold all across the world.
      The Afghan in the train attack was not a refugee and the German-Iranian obviously wasn't either, and in fact the latter was a right-wing attack motivated against immigration, and he only killed foreign-looking people.

      So, no terrorist attack by a refugee so far.

      The Syrian woman was an "honor killing", an Islamic concept that came into the country with refugees.
      The Afghan on the train wasn't a Syrian refugee, he was an "immigrant that escaped violence in Afghanistan" to go to Germany, where he swore allegiance to ISIS and tried to kill a bunch of people.
      The kid in Munich was a native born Germany that was beaten multiple times, and bullied at school, and so tried to kill as many high-school students as possible. He did not target foreign looking people, was not right wing, and had absolutely nothing to do with immigration. He was after revenge for his broken bones and abuse at the hands of his fellow students. Not terrorism, just another bullied student doing mass shooting like the school shooting in 2009.

    152. Re:Every intelligent person by yet+another+SanTiago · · Score: 1

      Right then, when was the public vote for Junker?

      In 2014 EP election, party groups declared their candidates for Commission Presidents. Juncker was EPP candidate, Martin Schulz was PES candidate and Guy Verhofstadt was ALDE candidate. EPP won the election, so Juncker was nominated by EC and elected by EP.

      and they can overrule parliament.

      Not in codecision procedure, which is used in most areas since the Lisbon Treaty.

      although it can fire the entire commission via unanimous vote.

      That is not true. EP can dismiss the commission by two-thirds majority vote of no-confidence. See article 234 of the Lisbon Treaty.

      Also note that in the past, EP was able to force resignation of Santer commission even without legal right to for that.

    153. Re:Every intelligent person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem with the Greek referendum was that they didn't vote against a EU law but against paying back a private entity, namely the banking sector. They didn't want to pay back the banks, so someone else had to pay back the banks. The Northern European countries said they would not pay back the banks, the banks would have to get the money from the countries who owned them the money. This was a normal reaction, because once Greece gets such a present, Portugal, Spain and Italy would be next to ask such a favor. It would be not honest towards other countries who have a lower standard of living as Greece but who have no problems paying their depths because they have cut away a lot of benefits.

      I don't think referendums are really democratic by the way. It is just the will of the majority, while my view on democracy is that representatives form a coalition together and respect all political views and minorities. Referendums don't guarantee that every political view is respected or every minority is respected. It is just the power of the majority. Too important and complex matter is reduced to a simply yes or no, in or out. Nobody really understands what the EU does and how important it is to the people. Nobody understands the complex bureaucracy and all the weird laws either. Nobody understands the difference between democratically elected parliament and the non elected commission. Then there are people who have nothing to do with the EU who come and say something scaring and then there is the real problem that people were afraid of the last years: the high amount of non integrated people who just terrorize people, neighborhoods and even perform high profile terrorist attacks with lots of symbolism. My wife can no longer safely go to her parents grave at night when she feels like 'talking' to her mother (probably praying). She has been harassed a few times by non integrated people who hate everything that is Christian or Western. They just grab her ass or tits and call her names. This doesn't happen in the political correct media and is never addressed by political correct politicians. Only extreme right addresses these issues and my wife nor me want to vote extreme right, so we stay inside and just be 'scared'.

      But the last years we both have become less and less anti extreme right. Every time we try to watch the 'constructive journalism' on our political correct TV-shows, we feel more and more disconnected from our society. 80+ people die and a bunch of Muslims come to explain how it is all our fault and how it has nothing to do with Islam because Islam is peace, with a few politician nodding and claiming that we have a higher chance to be killed in a car accident then to be killed in a terrorist attack. But that doesn't explain the freaking high chance to be terrorist by local non integrated Muslims who annoy people who are alone. They are smart enough to just spit, call names, to touch, to intimidate, to just sexually harass without 'real raping' women. Because nobody can proof anything. And when there is a reaction by someone who becomes aggressive and starts fighting, they are the victims and get defended by lawyers who will manage a life long monthly compensation for their damaged soul.

      They last 2 years there are almost weekly manifestations. The last weeks every single day hundreds of bloodthirsty Turks wanted to kill other Turks who are hiding. Meanwhile cars, windows, mailboxes, gardens... are destroyed and politicians just look away. They don't kill anyone, but they really, and I mean really scare me. Hundreds of red flag waving Turks shouting Allah Akbar for hours every single day. This is no longer Western Europe. This has become Turkey. The police does nothing, until Sunday when a group of 'white Christians' were fed up with the constant manifestations and shouted "this is our country move to Turkey slogans". The anti riot police was fast to stop these whites, because opposing Muslims is extreme right and politicians don't want that. The Christians were just fed up with the fact that the

    154. Re:Every intelligent person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The terrorist attacks are not done by refugees but by home grown terrorists. And terrorism is just about scaring people, not only about killing them. Terrorism starts by scaring people in your neighborhood. Achieving in scaring non Muslims to walk down the street. Achieving in scaring bus drivers to stop at the buss stop. Achieving in scaring the police that they don't even dare to come in the neighborhood. That's terrorism too. It doesn't have to be about suicide bombing terrorists. Just throwing a rock at the right place and the right time can do wonders. Just showing up with the right number of people at the right moment at the right place scares the hell out of parents who get their kids from school on foot or by bike. Just showing up with a big enough number of people when a 'brother' is arrested for dealing drugs, so the police just runs away in fear while a police van is destroyed and a group joyrides with a police car is enough to declare the no-go-zone as theirs. A successful wave of terrorism. Can you even blame them. They can control mini states, larger than mundane Monaco, without being bothered. They can't be touched. They are the warlords that get the loot, the woman and the land, just like their prophet Mohammed promised... Their view on Islam is working. Even when they just enjoy western luxury and drink alcohol and deal and use drugs. It is still Islam in action, including extorting money from shop owners in their no-go-zone because of different views on Islam.

      It happens. It really happens. Of course people don't want this to happen and they just look they other side. Meanwhile people, real people, see what has happened, still happens and will happen in more and more places all over Western Europe. Former middle class neighborhoods have turned in no-go-zone. Former luxury houses have been left behind, while the owners still had to pay the mortgage and even still pay the land tax, are in the hands of criminals.

      All kinds of weapons and drugs are available in these zones. Nothing is done about it. Why would a police man who has to warn three times before he is allowed to shoot with a small hand gun that shoots rubber bullets risk his life in an area where the criminals just shoot with heavy machine guns without warning through walls?

    155. Re:Every intelligent person by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      I think you will find most people are NOT freaking out about it.

      Perhaps, but here is some anecdotal evidence. I need to find a new tenant for my rental house in the UK because the tenant lost his job as a direct result of the Brexit vote.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    156. Re:Every intelligent person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is peace in Europe because the US has been baby sitting them since the end of WW2. And all the US has got for it's money, time, and lives are a bunch a whiny morons who do nothing but insult the US and it's citizens and automatically assume the US has their back. Dissolve NATO and Russia could launch an operation to re-claim all of it's cold war protectorates in eastern Europe and the Europeans would do nothing. If the US was to repudiate all of it's military treaties and mutual defense agreements we would be living in a very different world.

    157. Re:Every intelligent person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The British civilization is the greatest that the world has ever known.

      Was... was is the word you're looking for.

      BG will do fine as an independent country.

      For a given definition of "fine".

    158. Re:Every intelligent person by tsa · · Score: 1

      Thank you moronoxyd for answering the exact same thing I would have answered. That saves me a lot of typing :). And yes, I did mean referendum when I said election, sorry.

      --

      -- Cheers!

    159. Re:Every intelligent person by tsa · · Score: 1

      That last thing is because the UK hasn't left te EU yet. And even now the negative implications of the outcome of the referendum are already visible.

      --

      -- Cheers!

    160. Re: Every intelligent person by untoreh+ · · Score: 1

      Eh,you don't have to leave the union to become a cheap labor country... Greece*Italy*...

    161. Re:Every intelligent person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In 2014 EP election, party groups declared their candidates for Commission Presidents. Juncker was EPP candidate, Martin Schulz was PES candidate and Guy Verhofstadt was ALDE candidate. EPP won the election, so Juncker was nominated by EC and elected by EP.

      Parliament rubber stamped the council nomination but where did the public vote for him? You think the public in Northern Europe would have considered the guy electable? You have obviously forgotten that few in the EU wanted Juncker and if you think European politicians consider Junckers "election" legitimate then consider...

      On Tuesday evening, EU heads of state and government come together for what could be their last supper together with Cameron. On the following morning, they make clear to Juncker that they will be taking the lead in the exit negotiations with Britain. "But that is the Commission's responsibility," Juncker protests. "Jean-Claude, we have been elected, you haven't been," is the rejoinder from several prime ministers and heads of state.

      Not in codecision procedure, which is used in most areas since the Lisbon Treaty.

      My reading (and it has been some time) was simply that the commission can overrule parliament and that the council of ministers can overrule the commission.

      That is not true. EP can dismiss the commission by two-thirds majority vote of no-confidence. See article 234 of the Lisbon Treaty.

      Also note that in the past, EP was able to force resignation of Santer commission even without legal right to for that.

      I was going from memory but am prepared to split the difference on this. Rather than a simple majority vote we have an arbitrary 75%, should parliament ever use a power that was not granted with a view to ever being exercised.

      Sure, it's possible to apply pressure for a political resignation.... until it is not. Were such tactics always reliable, Juncker would never had landed the job to begin with.

    162. Re:Every intelligent person by drolli · · Score: 1

      Sixt largest, since some idiots destabilized the currency.

      http://metro.co.uk/2016/06/24/...

    163. Re:Every intelligent person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To say nothing of insolvent Italian banks and the worlds "most systematically dangerous" German bank

      A phrase involving rocks and glass houses springs to mind...

      Not really!

    164. Re:Every intelligent person by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      The government and civil service are working on a plan now.

      wow. yes. Way to go. Let's vote for a huge, politically charged issue with no cluse as to if we can do it in a sensible manner. You've basically admitted that brexiters have no idea what they voted for because without a plan before voting you've no idea what is going to happen.

      I have no idea why you think the UK, an independent country for 1,000

      rah rah history rah rah we were the biggest empire too once. So what?

      notwithstanding our 40 year membership of the EU

      We always were an independent country.

      is now incapable of governing itself

      Have you seen the current lot? They were happy to take a wild leap into the dark funded on a pack of lies. It's also foolish to misremresent the remain side. there's a wide gulf between failing completely and being a bit shit. We're headed for the latter.

      What a sad little mind you have.

      Aaaand we reach the true core. Once you run out of reason, which took all of 2 posts, just resort to insults.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    165. Re:Every intelligent person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course you do. You're European. Your entire construct relies on having high value countries involved to prop you up. Therefore, you will say anything.

    166. Re:Every intelligent person by daedalus2097 · · Score: 1

      The pound lost ground against all currencies - it was the one that was devalued, the Euro (and most other currencies) stayed pretty much where they had been.

    167. Re:Every intelligent person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Every intelligent person in Britain should be freaking out about the brexit." Says a person with the IQ of an average brick...

      "I hope that the EU gives them choice between coming back without any special status..." What? They have not left yet. The EU was nice in concept, it has now left that concept behind and morphed into a general, non-democratic, control system for Europe. That was never what was sold. I truly hope they leave the EU but It seems like "they" (current rulers) will stall until it is no longer possible/feasible.

    168. Re:Every intelligent person by yet+another+SanTiago · · Score: 1

      Parliament rubber stamped the council nomination but where did the public vote for him?

      Like in most parliamentary democracies, head of government is formally nominated by president or monarch (or European Council in case of EU), but it is the majority of the parliament who vote for him.

      You have obviously forgotten that few in the EU wanted Juncker and if you think European politicians consider Junckers "election" legitimate then consider

      Not really. Leading national politicians (e.g. European Council) did not want Juncker as EC president. After 2014 EP election there was conflict between them and newly elected MEPs whether the Council nominate Juncker or some of Council preferred candidate. But leaders of EP party groups expressed that they did not vote for any other candidate that winner of the EP election.

      You think the public in Northern Europe would have considered the guy electable?

      Well, definitely not worse than last five prime ministers in country me being citizen of.

      My reading (and it has been some time) was simply that the commission can overrule parliament and that the council of ministers can overrule the commission.

      From Wikipedia:

      Article 294 TFEU outlines ordinary legislative procedure in the following manner. The Commission submits a legislative proposal to the Parliament and Council. At the first reading Parliament adopts its position. If the Council approves the Parliament's wording then the act is adopted. If not, it shall adopt its own position and pass it back to Parliament with explanations. The Commission also informs Parliament of its position on the matter. At the second reading, the act is adopted if Parliament approves the Council's text or fails to take a decision. The Parliament may reject the Council's text, leading to a failure of the law, or modify it and pass it back to the Council. The Commission gives its opinion once more. Where the Commission has rejected amendments in its opinion, the Council must act unanimously rather than by majority.

      So EP can reject legislation in the second reading.

      Rather than a simple majority vote we have an arbitrary 75%

      Two-thirds is ~67 %, the usual margin for important decisions.

      Well, after experience with unstable governments based on narrow majority of few MEPs, such hysteresis seems like a good idea even for national governments.

    169. Re:Every intelligent person by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      What you seem to be saying is that a narrow victory in a referendum to make major changes to the status quo without detailed planning should be followed at all cost. Typically, changes to the status quo require more support than keeping things the same, so I'm not impressed with the vote. Moreover, it was a vote on a very general idea, with no actual planning behind it, and no way to consider consequences.

      I'd expect the UK government to carry on with planning based on that vote, but would want it to get more confirmation before invoking Article 50. If the public still wants Brexit at that time, they can always vote for it, and if they have changed their collective minds they can back out then.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    170. Re:Every intelligent person by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      A narrow majority wanted it, and some of those people are currently unhappy with the vote. That doesn't support a claim that "most people are happy".

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    171. Re:Every intelligent person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Everybody hopes May et al., together with the EU will now do the sensible thing and keep the UK in the EU"

      No. They. Fucking. Don't.

      Who are you lying to: Other people, or yourself?

    172. Re:Every intelligent person by Fragnet · · Score: 1

      If only France, Italy and Greece had their own currencies that rose or fell with economic conditions.

    173. Re:Every intelligent person by Fragnet · · Score: 1

      no cluse as to if we can do it in a sensible manner.

      Assuming other people are ignorant of the subject just because you are is a common fallacy. Brexiters voted to give our MPs the power to decide how we leave and what the deal will be. They will be judged at the ballot box on it in 2020. This is called democracy and it's the main reason Leave won. You seem to have missed this point, inexplicably.

      rah rah history rah rah we were the biggest empire too once. So what?

      I didn't mention the Empire. I said we'd been independent for 1,000 years. You seem to think we're incapable of governing ourselves without the drunkard Jean Claude Junker's help. What a fucking joke.

      We always were an independent country.

      Alas not. An independent country can sign its own treaties and trade deals. It can decide its own laws and not have them subject to some supranational powers. It can have its own immigration policy. It's supreme court really is supreme. None of those things apply to the UK inside the European Union.

      They were happy to take a wild leap into the dark funded on a pack of lies

      It's not a wild leap in the dark. It's independence. Again, the same independence we enjoyed for 1,000 years before we joined the EU. And speaking of a bit shit, you do realise there's a permanent financial crisis in the Eurozone and that southern Europe is currently enjoying 50% youth unemployment, a resurgence of the far right, a terrorist campaign against it and a general decline so hard it's the only region on earth that isn't growing, don't you? Strange that you fail to draw the obvious conclusions. It's almost as if you're wearing blinkers.

      Once you run out of reason, which took all of 2 posts, just resort to insults.

      Why not? You're clearly a fucking idiot.

    174. Re:Every intelligent person by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Alas not. An independent country can sign its own treaties and trade deals. It can decide its own laws and not have them subject to some supranational powers. It can have its own immigration policy. It's supreme court really is supreme. None of those things apply to the UK inside the European Union.

      And we could do all of those things. Every single one. No tanks would roll in should we choose to do them. No planes would bomb us or occupying forces would make us do otherwise. If we had chosen to do those then we'd have been ejected from the EU, but so what, eh?

      What we couldn't do is do those things after we'd agreed not to and have people treat us as remotely honest trading partners. And the fact that we have apparently chosen to leave proves that we always had the capability to do any of those things.

      It's sad, but oddly telling that you have such strong opinions yet misunderstand one of the most fundamental points.

      Why not? You're clearly a fucking idiot.

      That's kind of funnysad given how you seem to be ignorant of the most fundamental aspects of the whole thing.

      Also, you are incapable of reading what I wrote. All you do is invent an extreme version then attempt to rebut that. The thing I find most amusing is that you're so inept that you can't even slay the straw men.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    175. Re:Every intelligent person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed. BREXIT was a fraud as a campaign.

      That said, many of the issues are real issues.....but they aren't the fault of the EU.

      For example, countries like the UK are very reluctant to give up power to an EU government. So the elected EU Parliament is relatively weak. The REAL power lies in the EU Commission....the defacto agent / instrument of the 20-odd countries in the EU, most of whom don't want to give up much power to the EU government. What power they DO give it mainly through the Commission......

      So when (mainly conservative) BREXIT-ers criticise the EU as undemocratic and not very accountable.....they should be aware that THEY DID THAT by refusing to cede power to the elected EU Parliament that would have been democratic and accountable.

      Conservatives are immune to irony. Or farce. Or satire. It's their everyday.

    176. Re:Every intelligent person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like in most parliamentary democracies, head of government is formally nominated by president or monarch (or European Council in case of EU), but it is the majority of the parliament who vote for him.

      What? In the UK a party elects a leader, we vote for our local representative and the leader of the party with the most votes selects a government. It's simple and constituents have access to government at every level.

      In the EU, an unelected council put it place by national governments nominates unelected individuals and the parliament rubber stamp one for the president of the commission. As previously stated, many (including myself) do not consider this 'accessible' democracy under the terms of the Copenhagen Criteria. It's a shitehaus!

      Well, definitely not worse than last five prime ministers in country me being citizen of.

      Sorry to hear that. If it's any consolation, I disliked Blair, Brown and Cameron. At least there's a chance of Blair being held accountable for his actions in office. I don't know if or how the case against Juncker and his tax avoidance administration will ever be made. What I do know is that EU executive immunity from prosecution is unacceptable. Why would that exist unless they knew they were doing something wrong?

      The Commission gives its opinion once more. Where the Commission has rejected amendments in its opinion, the Council must act unanimously rather than by majority.

      Yes, as I expanded - the commission can overrule the parliament and the council can overrule the commission. The problem is that this is a mess. In a democratic European federation, parliament should propose legislation. In a federation of nation states, national parliaments should propose legislation through the council. I support the latter but believe the commission should do no more than liaise with industry in either situation.

      Two-thirds is ~67 %, the usual margin for important decisions. Well, after experience with unstable governments based on narrow majority of few MEPs, such hysteresis seems like a good idea even for national governments.

      Go easy - I drank more than Juncker last night when I wrote the comment.

      Perhaps of interest if you have not seen it already... EB85 was published the other day. Of course immigration and terrorism were presented as separate and distinct options to participants. The EU and our media are still in complete denial mode with regard to the sectarianism they are importing.

    177. Re:Every intelligent person by ytene · · Score: 1

      Whilst a nice idea in principle, I think that you may have a flawed approach there.

      You see, if the Remain campaign had won the popular vote, then there is no way on this earth that a 52/48 decision in favour of Remain would ever give the "Leave" vote a second crack at this, or a chance to "change their minds".

      Under the illusion of "being certain" or "being reasonable" you are suggesting a mechanism to overturn a democratic process. The thing is, the UK signed up to a European *Economic* Community when the first vote was put to the people back in the 1970s. What then happened was that the EU went about granting itself more and more powers, went about turning a free trade area into a monetary and incrementally political union.

      So it is entirely specious of you to argue that another vote is needed "just to make sure". We don't do that in General Elections and it wasn't done when the UK voted to join the EEC. No need for another one now.

  10. Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now if we could just cripple the UK even further as punishment for their stupidity, that would be great.

  11. Re:I'm still LOLing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    We're also far smarter than the Europeans and Americans, so we won't repeat their mistakes and we'll be here to stay at the top.

    Says the guy that buys a litre of milk in a fucking plastic bag.

  12. Re:I'm still LOLing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the UK is America's 51st state, then Canada is its 52nd.
    Don't worry dear canuks, you can't do jack shit without approval from your masters down south.

  13. Poor bastards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah I don't blame them; The education system in the UK is already starting to collapse with the spike in interest on Student Loans discouraging people from going to University if they don't want to be in debt for the rest of their lives, and the government selling off primary and secondary schools to private corporations.
    And don't get me started on how they keep chopping and changing the curriculum so nobody knows what they are doing.

    Things could get better or worse, but we may end up losing our dominance in the tertiary industry and going back to being primarily secondary industry...

    But I guess I can't blame the idiots that believed the Leave campaign people when they were dangling all these golden carrots in front of their faces only to backtrack and disappear immediately after they'd done their damage.

    1. Re: Poor bastards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can blame Tony Blair's stupid idea of putting 50% of yoof through higher education. Somehow the appropriate jobs for them didn't appear, leading to hordes of unfulfilled, poorly-paid but well-qualified baristas.

  14. What do we need scientists for? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Every brexiter knows that we don't need bankers and scientists? The sooner the move abroad the better. I saw an Iranian scientist on TV the other day and the sooner he has to go back to Europe the better

  15. EU science programs open to non-members by cdrnet · · Score: 2

    It is possible to take part in EU science programs and funding like Horizon 2020 without strictly being an EU member. For example, Switzerland used to participate in such programs almost the same way member states do (including receiving funding, but of course also by funding it itself).

    Unfortunately, the EU really likes using such programs to put pressure to non-member states for completely unrelated negotiations, and as a result has recently excluded Switzerland from Horizon 2020. I wouldn't be surprised if they used the same tactics also against the UK in the future.

    1. Re:EU science programs open to non-members by umafuckit · · Score: 5, Informative

      Unfortunately, the EU really likes using such programs to put pressure to non-member states for completely unrelated negotiations, and as a result has recently excluded Switzerland from Horizon 2020. I wouldn't be surprised if they used the same tactics also against the UK in the future.

      It was Switzerland's choice. They voted to restrict immigration and what you outline was the result. Maybe one shouldn't be tied to the other, but they knew what they were getting themselves into when they voted. Don't forget it barely got through. As is often the case with these motions pushed by Switzerland's right-wing party, it's the more rural cantons that vote for them and the urban areas that vote against them. i.e. it's the people who actually interact with foreigners that want them in Switzerland.

    2. Re:EU science programs open to non-members by TheRaven64 · · Score: 3, Interesting
      UK academics are already seeing strong proposals for EU funding rejected with notes saying that 'other factors' are now being weight in their evaluation. Other EU universities are starting to regard UK universities as too high a risk as partners for EU funds (and most of the funds require that you partner with organisations in multiple EU institutions). That's restricting access to EU funds, while we're still part of the EU and still paying into the pot that the funding comes from.

      On the plus side, we're now an even more attractive place for DARPA to fund - we were already cheap compared to most US institutions and just became 10% cheaper...

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    3. Re:EU science programs open to non-members by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This may be new to you, but the wealthiest and more educated successful people tend to live in the rural areas. It's the medium-low income folks who end up in cities because they can't affort to live in the country. I think however the Swiss are doing it the wrong way: they should carry out terrorist attacks round the clock, blowing up things and killing people, and the EU would cave in. Might makes right and violence is the ultimate might.

    4. Re:EU science programs open to non-members by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is possible to take part in EU science programs and funding like Horizon 2020 without strictly being an EU member

      It's impossible to know what the terms will be in the future for UK, yet. Getting EU funding for research projects is a slow process. There's no way to go through the process in less time than a year, two years or more are not unheard of. A successful application that's made today will get bulk of the money after Brexit has happened.

      This is a very strong incentive for continental research groups to not include UK universities in a project. It may well be that in the future UK universities can take a part in EU projects, but it's a damned big risk to take today. It's a bloody big mess if the funding of a project goes haywire because the UK partner has to withdraw from it, and that's a risk that can be avoided with 100% certainty by keeping the project 100% non-UK.

    5. Re:EU science programs open to non-members by jcdr · · Score: 1

      You misunderstand the situation.
      It was the EU choice to refuse any negotiation about required adjustment to a more than _30_YEARS_OLD_ agreement that way setup in a context without the today reality.
      It was the EU choice to consider a _INTERNAL_ decision of the Swiss politic to setup a new laws within _3_YEARS_ as a immediate change to to the EU relation.
      It was the EU choice to use the EU science program to make an illegal pressure (because there was in effect no change at all, even today) on the Swiss population.

      Still today, absolutely _NOTHING_ have changed in the laws because of that vote. The EU simply don't understand a single bit of how a direct democracy work, and in fact act like there are afraid of the direct democracy. Even more than that, the EU constantly spread orders to the various EU governments without any clue of what the people think. See how many popular votes was against the out of control EU bureaucratic system.

      It's safe to say that actually in any western EU countries there is between 1/3 and 1/2 of citizens that dislike the EU political system and that the amount is growing each time the EU continue his abject almost dictatorial political system. The future is very simple, as every historical situations like this have show: the system will fail in more and more subjects until it will be replaced by an other.

      It's the EU choice to refuse any negotiation to find a acceptable solution. But the reality change and require adjustment to survive.

    6. Re:EU science programs open to non-members by orzetto · · Score: 4, Informative

      It is possible to take part in EU science programs and funding like Horizon 2020 without strictly being an EU member.

      Yes, but you need to be a third-world county or an associated country; source here. Essentially, you can get funding if you are outside the EU if you are:

      • a EU country, e.g. France;
      • a colony of a EU country, e.g. Greenland;
      • an Associated Country, which means countries in the wider sphere of influence of the EU, e.g. Norway;
      • a third-world country like Afghanistan.

      Developed countries like US, Canada, Russia and China are excluded, and that's the set in which the UK will land after Brexit. Their only option is to join as an Associated Country, but that is more expensive than staying in as an EU member. Otherwise, they can wait until their economy tanks bad enough to join the other list.

      I am coordinator for two EU projects, each with 6 partners over 5 countries, and I know the system fairly well. And I have a proposal with one UK partner in processing, damnit.

      --
      Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
    7. Re:EU science programs open to non-members by jcdr · · Score: 2

      An other point regarding you text.

      Any Swiss citizens are equal, and are free to vote directly on each subject without any consideration to the political parties. Might be obvious to any Swiss citizens but it's important to remain this on an international site as this is sadly still today very uncommon around the world. The raw reality is that more than the right oriented citizens voted yes and that the rural citizens is a small fraction of the Swiss total citizens, so you analysis is obviously wrong.

      I am really not certain that a new vote will change the result as the immigration problem is even more a big problem today and everyday news don't let any hope to foreseeable calm down, but this last point is only my personal view.

      Now if you compare political debates about immigration in Switzerland and in France, it's clear that the vote against massive immigration matured the discussions between all the parties. Before that vote it was too easy for left politics to deny the discussion because there tagged anyone with adjective like xenophobe, racist, afraid of strangers, and so unable to debate on the subject. At least now there have understand that there are a minority that blocked the debate. It's now possible to take seriously about the various immigration processes, to analyse them and to propose acceptable solutions to manage them. It's a lot of work for sure but that work absolutely need to be done at the political level before it have others consequences on others aspects of the life.

      That said, from the international level, citizens of countries that voted for insane government that make ware against there own citizens should get there responsibilities. From my point of view it like a democratic genocide. Having a disagreement in a point of time is not enough to tag the others as terrorist and to try to kill them. The confusion is today so high that it challenge the actual definition of terrorism and any processes to stop it.

    8. Re:EU science programs open to non-members by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Switzerland had issues for a while.... "In the context of Switzerland's temporary exclusion from European research funding, the ERC decided that ERC Starting and Consolidator Grants awarded in 2014 are not transferable to Switzerland."

      (Yes, I'm aware that this was fixed later.)

      Source: http://www.snf.ch/en/funding/programmes/temporary-erc-backup-schemes/Pages/default.aspx

    9. Re:EU science programs open to non-members by umafuckit · · Score: 1

      An other point regarding you text.

      Any Swiss citizens are equal, and are free to vote directly on each subject without any consideration to the political parties. Might be obvious to any Swiss citizens but it's important to remain this on an international site as this is sadly still today very uncommon around the world.

      I'm not really sure where you're going with your posts or why you think I'm saying anything very different to what you're saying, but I'm not sure about this particular statement of yours. In Switzerland you often have referendums on various topics. As you say, you can be affiliated to any political party and vote however you like in a referendum. You then say that this is uncommon elsewhere in the world. What is uncommon? The ability to have a referendum? Or the ability to vote how you like in a referendum. It seems to be the latter, which is clearly not true. I'm confused.

    10. Re:EU science programs open to non-members by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You people do know that one of the largest scientific projects in Europe is CERN, which is carried out by France, an EU member and Switzerland a non-EU member? So obviously EU membership is unnecessary to carry out large scientific projects.

    11. Re:EU science programs open to non-members by jcdr · · Score: 1

      Technically you can find others counties that share the same kind of political features, but it's uncommon to have the same set as in Switzerland and that make the whole system original, interesting, and likely more stable (at least since 1848):
      * Citizens directly vote for the two chambers parliament members (one proportional to the states, and one proportional to the citizens)
      * Parliament members votes for the 7 members of the federal council in a way that each leading parties is represented.
      * The federal council is the head of state and as as single entity (the president title is a decorative round-robin between the 7 members).
      * Any proposition of change must be agree by the two parliament chambers.
      * Any change of the constitution require a vote of the citizens and the Swiss constitution go into many details.
      * Any change of a law is subject to a referendum by the citizens.
      * Citizens can propose an popular initiative that require a vote, even if it's again's the government wish.
      Bosnie-Herzégovine for example share multiples features with the Swiss political system. It's still uncommon around the world to have citizens vote on about 10 federal subjects per year.

    12. Re:EU science programs open to non-members by jcdr · · Score: 1

      Terrorist attacks ? Seriously ? No.

      Actually the EU political system is so wrong about the citizens rights that it show very odd consequences. While Switzerland try to find a pacific and negotiated way to manage the various immigration processes in an acceptable way, It's actually a single person (Junker) that decide itself to make the negotiation process too late and not effective enough. It's why some see Junker as a dictator. He even failed to negotiate with the UK about the very same subject. He previously already failed to negotiate a acceptable plan for Greece. Junker is a massive failure the citizens.

    13. Re:EU science programs open to non-members by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course they are afraid.
      The EU is the unified germany, france and others have dreamed of for centuries.
      They don't want the population of some country to stand in the way of that.
      They don't acknowledge any kind of criticism of they bureaucratic clusterfuck.
      I'm not saying the EU is 100% bad. It has many good points. But the inability of the leadership to admit to any fault whatsoever, and their constant attempts to expand the EU's power are driving more and more people to be against it.
      Also, this whole refugee and immigration straw man is reprehensible.
      I (and many other people for decreasing immigration) are not saying we shouldn't help anyone.
      We are just saying that we should help people within reason.
      We shouldn't banktrupt ourselves, or destroy our own culture in order to save someone else.
      A much more effective way to help would be to improve their countries so they didn't have to come here.

  16. For An Article Concerning Scientific Research... by ytene · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... the piece in the Washington Post is long on opinion and *very* short on fact.

    For example, the piece makes much of comments by Dame Jocelyn Bell Burnell, president of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, that one third of the teaching staff in Edinburgh hold EU passports and are "very twitchy right now". Well, that's real science, right there, eh? I mean, that's an empirical survey if ever there was one.

    What the British Government has said (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36916836) is that it wants and expects to protect the rights of EU workers currently living in Britain, but that such protections would be conditional upon EU countries providing the same protections for UK citizens living in the EU. That doesn't seem reasonable, but it doesn't explain the scaremongering attempted by the Washington Post.

    I guess it is worth pointing out that President Obama and the US Administration were very much in favour of the UK remaining within the EU. Washington saw the UK membership of the EU as a lever it could apply to get the EU to go along with things like TTIP and joint military participation with operations like those in Afghanistan and Iraq.

    In other words, you have to treat this article in exactly the same way that a scientist would treat a claim that some random sub-atomic particle could travel faster than the speed of light: look for substantiating evidence; look for corroboration; examine the sources of evidence; look at the statistical significance of the sampled data, and so on.

    This rather shoddy article contains a lot of supposition, suggestion and conjecture, but it has been very selective in it's reporting of "facts".

    Nothing to see here. Move along, move along.

  17. Re:For An Article Concerning Scientific Research.. by ytene · · Score: 1

    That doesn't seem *unreasonable*. Doh.

  18. Ya rly. by serviscope_minor · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Well, perhaps we could find a better way to hand out grants to scientists, so we don't end up wasting it.

    Perhaps we could also farm unicorns and sell the sparkles that they poop.

    I think your idea is lovely in theory (hey thinks we should waste more?), but very difficult in practice. It turns out that we're already doing about everything right in that the UK has about the best scientific output per unit of currency invested of any large country. Grants are already fiercely competitive, and standards for hiring are orders of magnitude higher than they were 20 or 30 years ago.

    I've hashed over this topic many many times. I'm a former academic and it's a somewhat popular topic especially among younger academics (since we get fewer grants than the older ones), but despite many very long, earnest conversations, I've not encountered any ideas that aren't really easily shot down.

    It's easy to come up with notions. It's a bit harder to come up with ideas, it's harder still to come up with a plan that isn't really easily shot down because it will fail in some way or be sufficiently more expensive that you may as well just spend the money on the old method and get better results overall.

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
    1. Re:Ya rly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Well, perhaps we could find a better way to hand out grants to scientists, so we don't end up wasting it.

      Perhaps we could also farm unicorns and sell the sparkles that they poop.

      I think your idea is lovely in theory (hey thinks we should waste more?), but very difficult in practice. It turns out that we're already doing about everything right in that the UK has about the best scientific output per unit of currency invested of any large country. Grants are already fiercely competitive, and standards for hiring are orders of magnitude higher than they were 20 or 30 years ago.

      I've hashed over this topic many many times. I'm a former academic and it's a somewhat popular topic especially among younger academics (since we get fewer grants than the older ones), but despite many very long, earnest conversations, I've not encountered any ideas that aren't really easily shot down.

      It's easy to come up with notions. It's a bit harder to come up with ideas, it's harder still to come up with a plan that isn't really easily shot down because it will fail in some way or be sufficiently more expensive that you may as well just spend the money on the old method and get better results overall.

      You're too attached to the system. How do you determine scientific output? It's almost invariabily tied to papers published. As the GP linked, there were on the order of 40,000 papers published in neuroscience that were completely a waste of time with no scientific value, and yet those are counted as "Scientific Output".

      You also made the comment that grant funding is getting more competitive. This is a complete misstatement of the facts (at least in the US): grant funding is simply seeing a massive increase in applications because in order to be successful at getting funded scientists are playing the numbers game, applying for as many grants as possible in order to be successful. It appears more competitive because there's more applications for the same amount of money. However, science funding is almost entirely socialist now, and like many socialist systems you get funded if you're part of the in-crowd. If you're in the US and applying to the NIH, there are several rules of thumb: 1) you always fail your first application no matter what (and this happens now with no review comments, they simply see it's your first and they fail you), 2) the Program Manager has no say, his academic review committee awards all the grants, and thus the best way to get a grant from a specific group is to have one of the members of the review committee as a collaborator. That's not a competitive system, it's corrupt and enabling of bad science in favor of keeping people funded.

      The GP is right; the problem with science funding is it's heavily skewed towards number of papers published. Scientists are human beings who seek to maximize their utility; they'll want more grants so they can publish more papers os they can advance their own career and make more money. It always comes back to that; sure they want to do good science but not at the expense of their salaries and career, so they'll apply wherever they get money and get papers and not about what gets them the best science.

      You want a good system? How about a system where a scientist is graded on the number of patents they file that are subsequently commercialized in 5 years? Or how about remove the peer academic review from grant awards and instead hire full time scientists to do it? How about removing "# of papers published" as a method to gauge where new funding should come or to measure "scientific output"?

    2. Re:Ya rly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about you come up with some notions to counter the totalitarian supporters on the continent who are punishing people for exercising democracy instead of groveling to the plutocrats.

    3. Re:Ya rly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Grants are already fiercely competitive

      No, they are not. I am "one of the older ones" and can asset with first hand knowledge that Grants have more to do with personal relationships and ideology than competition.

      The fact that you are "former" and obviously not successful in the grant space is a clear indication that you failed to grasp this part of the equation.

    4. Re:Ya rly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      UK has about the best scientific output per unit of currency invested of any large country.

      Scientific citation needed on that seemingly subjective measurement.

    5. Re:Ya rly. by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      On phone. Excuse the reply.

      In the UK, your research output is now measured by your top 4 papers in the last 5 years. So your "should be done" thing has if fact already been done. IME the quantity of whining is in inverse proportion to the quality of the scientist.

      Cow orker of mine got NIH grant with me on first try with no contacts.

      Nepotism in grant bodies is a problem, but they're still really competitive.

      Plenty of scientists are crap and play the game. The good ones do the best science they can and screw the consequences. Ths REF has helped their cause. If you think scientists won't say fuck my salary I'm doing science, then you don't know many scientists, or at least not many good ones.

      5 years is way way too short a time. My top paper got 5x the citations in the 9th year after it was published as it did in the 5th year. The 10th year may be better still. Patents suck, I released the algorithm unpatented and with BSD licenced code in 3 languages.

      Reviewing grants is fucking miserable. You'll only get really mediocre scientists to work on that full time and anyway how are they going to keep on top of the state of the art if they're not practicing.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    6. Re:Ya rly. by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Yeah they are. Very competitive doesn't imply the competition is perfectly fair. The Russians doping the crap out of their team doesn't make Olympic golds any less competitive. It's also interesting that you assume you know why I left academia.

        Contacts help a great deal, but you're still not getting a royal society urf without a decent proposal.

      Even then most of the people getting through to the final round have those contracts and there's still far more of them than there are grants to give out.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    7. Re:Ya rly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Level of output is not the same thing as quality of output.

  19. Y2K FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Like Y2K Brexit is turning out to be a non-problem.

    Please stick to talking about Brexit, if you know anything about it. It's clear that you know nothing about Y2K.

    Y2K passed off with barely a whimper because millions of software engineers around the planet took it seriously and worked their asses off for a good 6 months to make their software cope with the year ticking over to 2000. Code that would break was found absolutely everywhere, and quite astounding budgets had to be mobilized to fix everything in time. Additional contractors were engaged almost around the clock at extortionate rates in the final months, because there was so much code to remedy.

    So yeah, Y2K went off very quietly, but no thanks to you. The thanks go to all the engineers who worked ridiculous hours to keep the systems you rely on from falling apart.

    1. Re:Y2K FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Not to mention that problems actually did occur even so; in all the fields that we were worrying about. It's just that they were relatively non-severe.

      Brexit, meanwhile, hasn't actually happened yet, but we are already feeling effects (on the pound for instance), and in academia scientists in the UK are _already_ losing out on long term projects because the project co-ordinators fear the impact of _possible_ Brexit.

      The idea that Brexit is a non-problem is a canard.

    2. Re:Y2K FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Y2K was a great jobs program for consultants, software engineers, and project managers to chase down nothing.
      I bought a house with the income.

      This is from Wikipedia:

      Others have asserted that there were no, or very few, critical problems to begin with. They also asserted that there would be only a few minor mistakes and that a "fix on failure" approach, would have been the most efficient and cost-effective way to solve these problems as they occurred.

      Countries such as South Korea and Italy invested little to nothing in Y2K remediation,[50] yet had the same negligible Y2K problems as countries that spent enormous sums of money.[51]

      The lack of Y2K-related problems in schools, many of which undertook little or no remediation effort. By 1 September 1999, only 28% of U.S. schools had achieved compliance for mission critical systems, and a government report predicted that "Y2K failures could very well plague the computers used by schools to manage payrolls, student records, online curricula, and building safety systems".[52]

      The lack of Y2K-related problems in an estimated 1.5 million small businesses that undertook no remediation effort. On 3 January 2000 (the first weekday of the year), the Small Business Administration received an estimated 40 calls from businesses with computer problems, similar to the average. None of the problems were critical.[53]

      The absence of Y2K-related problems occurring before 1 January 2000, even though the 2000 financial year commenced in 1999 in many jurisdictions, and a wide range of forward-looking calculations involved dates in 2000 and later years. Estimates undertaken in the leadup to 2000 suggested that around 25% of all problems should have occurred before 2000.[54] Critics of large-scale remediation argued during 1999 that the absence of significant reported problems in non-compliant small firms was evidence that there were had been, and would be, no serious problems needing to be fixed in any firm, and that the scale of the problem had therefore been severely overestimated.[55] However, this can be countered with the observation that large companies had significant problems requiring action, that Y2K programmes were fully aware of the variable timescale, and that they were working to a series of earlier target dates, rather than a single fixed target of 31 December 1999.[46]

    3. Re:Y2K FUD by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Baloney. There are literally millions of bugs in software systems today and the world doesn't stop spinning.

    4. Re:Y2K FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stop patting yourself on the back. It wasn't that hard to solve. I should know. I was working on it, too.

      I think the best part about it was that it only took 6 months.

    5. Re:Y2K FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are selling some of us short.

      I personally worked on converting programs for an IBM mainframe using its variant of COBOL over to a Unisys mainframe and its COBOL variant. All simply because the IBM COBOL variant could only handle 2-digit dates. This was 1997. The avoidance of issues with Y2K was a multi-year preparation, not just 6 months.

      I only say this to strengthen your point, not detract from it.

    6. Re:Y2K FUD by cwsumner · · Score: 1

      ... Y2K passed off with barely a whimper because millions of software engineers around the planet took it seriously and worked their asses off for a good 6 months to make their software cope with the year ticking over to 2000. ...

      This is true, I worked on the systems that were not yet fixed. Before and after year 2000. And some of them were definatly scary.

      Bottom line, don't believe the popular press reports any farther than you can throw them. About how terrible and scary things are, -or- about how all the scary was just a fraud. Both stories are written by the -same- reporters. ;-)

  20. Re:I'm still LOLing... by rainmouse · · Score: 1

    I must stress to all that this line of thinking is representative of the English majority, rather than the UK as a whole.

  21. Re: But they pay more to the EU than they get back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The little bit we lost was more than made up for in trade. Silly little biscuit

  22. Re:I'm still LOLing... by Z80a · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Both staying and leaving were awful options, but those are the only two options that were given by people that only wanted to use it as a pressure tool, not expecting leave to actually win.
    The "actually fix EU" option was never on the table.

  23. Yet another reason why Brexit won't happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    No rational political actor would trigger article 50

    43% of UK business happens with the EU.
    UK industry requires the large inflow of people to feed the economic beast.
    Research funding and participation.
    The EU as an entity cannot give a departing UK a sweetheart deal.
    Northern Ireland - the UK is party to a bilateral peace agreement in NI - with the Republic of Ireland - that is literally written into the Irish constitution - based on EU membership of both states - it cannot unilaterally rescind this agreement without breaking international law. The EU is not simply about the single market.
    Scotland - whatever about a recent YouGov poll - actually invoking article 50 will most certainly precipitate a Scottish secession vote.
    The Pound is at a 35 year low against the dollar and article 50 hasn't even been invoked - the pound would crater to parity (and everybody knows it).
    The economic impact is only starting to take its toll on the UK - give it a year and the public WILL be ready to reverse the vote.
    The city (name for London's financial sector) accounts for about 10% of UK GDP cannot effectively compete in the EU single market - with the UK on the outside (get serious).

    Only a bunch of self-styled 'swashbuclking men of the world' in the Tory party and out-and-out racists in UKIP/BNP are really 'bought into' Brexit - for (largely) English nostalgist/nationalist reasons. The rest - are simply registering a protest vote.

    Virtually every mainstream politician and business voice still supports the UK staying in the EU. Added to which many businesses are public stating that investment will not happen or has been redirected to other EU countries as a result of the Brexit vote. The only way to arrest the rot is to secure the UK's membership of the EU - triggering article 50 would simply pour rocket fuel on a economic fire that would blaze for a decade... and the political and bureaucratic establishment KNOWS it.

    Bottom line - no responsible government would actually trigger article 50. The likely (though not guaranteed) outcome is some huffing and puffing over the next year or so, and then some mechanism that allows the UK to remain in the EU with some fudge on migration concocted by the EU (think temporary derogation on 2004 EU accession countries).

    1. Re:Yet another reason why Brexit won't happen by Ash-Fox · · Score: 2

      Northern Ireland - the UK is party to a bilateral peace agreement in NI - with the Republic of Ireland - that is literally written into the Irish constitution - based on EU membership of both states - it cannot unilaterally rescind this agreement without breaking international law.

      Republic of Ireland may end up breaking EU laws to maintain it, but EU should be used to that considering how Poland barely complies with EU rules. I know it sounds crazy, but the Republic of Ireland will prioritize peace over war, even if it means they break some EU rules in the process.

      whatever about a recent YouGov poll

      YouGov poll said remaining would win by a decent margin, so, let's not take them as reputable.

      actually invoking article 50 will most certainly precipitate a Scottish secession vote.

      As someone who does live in the UK, I am fine with Scotland leaving if it wants to. I don't believe it's in Scotland's best interests, but they can control their own destiny, I'm not against that. I certainly welcome having the jobs moved over to County Antrim, such as when Ian Paisley responded to the SNP when they started complaining about the submarines, nukes etc. again. Of course, they went quiet the moment that was suggested.

      Only a bunch of self-styled 'swashbuclking men of the world' in the Tory party and out-and-out racists in UKIP/BNP are really 'bought into' Brexit - for (largely) English nostalgist/nationalist reasons. The rest - are simply registering a protest vote.

      I'm honestly offended with this pushed bile you people keep repeating. Sorry, that had nothing to do at all with why I voted leave. I voted leave because I believe the EU is a failed project and could probably survive another few hundred years as the countries inside slowly rot (never under estimate how long people can keep something terribly broken running when they consider it vital).

      The EU GDP growth projection figures were what I ended up decided on. But honestly, there were so many other reasons I ignored, like how the common fisheries policy issues had not been resolved since the 1970s even though Greenland left the EU over it. Or how the common agriculture policy forces farmers to require to be sustained by the union because they have to meet specific quotas, which then in return have to destroy produce because it wasn't even necessary etc.

      I personally think it's fascinating when you map out which counties had major industries and were adversely affected by EU regulations how the vote in those places mostly swayed towards leaving. I see a correlation there.

      Even Jean-Claude Juncker after the vote to leave had to tell the EU that the EU in it's current form was not going to work and needed to be reformed to resolve issues.

      Virtually every mainstream politician and business voice still supports the UK staying in the EU

      I listen to BBC parliament when I am working; honestly, I think you're getting your information from curated news feeds.

      no responsible government would actually trigger article 50. The likely (though not guaranteed) outcome is some huffing and puffing over the next year or so, and then some mechanism that allows the UK to remain in the EU with some fudge on migration concocted by the EU (think temporary derogation on 2004 EU accession countries).

      I don't disagree or agree with this statement, I just think it could really go either way at this point.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    2. Re:Yet another reason why Brexit won't happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >>Northern Ireland - the UK is party to a bilateral peace agreement in NI - with the Republic of Ireland - that is literally written into the Irish constitution - based on EU membership of both states - it cannot unilaterally rescind this agreement without breaking international law.

      >Republic of Ireland may end up breaking EU laws to maintain it, but EU should be used to that considering how Poland barely complies with EU rules. I know it sounds crazy, but the Republic of Ireland will prioritize peace over war, even if it means they break some EU rules in the process.

      Yes peace is the objective but, we will not be compromising on EU law, just because Michael Gove, Nigel Farrage and Boris Johnson sold a bunch of lies to Northern England. The simple fact is that withdrawal from the EU is incompatible with the GFA. The European Union is the forum through which relations between the UK government and ROI government were normalised, leading to the bilateral approach to peace in NI.

      This is of course the core purpose of the EU, to bind old enemies together and make war unthinkable. The fact that we have to have a conversation on - or even question the status of - peace, stability and normalcy in Norther Ireland is a direct result of the twisted and skewed leave campaign. What could be more surreal than Ian Paisley Junior calling both for Brexit and for NI citizens to take up Irish passports to mitigate it's effects. Bonkers and stupid !

      >> actually invoking article 50 will most certainly precipitate a Scottish secession vote.

      > As someone who does live in the UK, I am fine with Scotland leaving if it wants to. I don't believe it's in Scotland's best interests, but they can control their own destiny, I'm not against that. I certainly welcome having the jobs moved over to County Antrim, such as when Ian Paisley responded to the SNP when they started complaining about the submarines, nukes etc. again. Of course, they went quiet the moment that was suggested.

      Scotland leaving the UK makes no difference if both states end up in the EU. However it makes a huge difference if one state is in and one state is out.
      Are we really to believe that Ulster Unionism - which has always identified strongly with Scotland - is now indifferent to IndyRef2 ?

      But seriously - is there anything more two-faced and self-serving than Ian Paisley Junior - campaigning for Brexit and then encouraging NI citizens to take up Irish passports so that the results of the referendum won't affect them so badly ?

      >> Virtually every mainstream politician and business voice still supports the UK staying in the EU
      > I listen to BBC parliament when I am working; honestly, I think you're getting your information from curated news feeds.

      66% of Tory MPs.
      Virtual all Labour MPs.
      The BOE, Richard Branson, John Major, Tony Blair, Neil Kinnock, the UUP, the SDLP, the Shinners, the SNP, The Lib Dems, the confederation of British industry.
      http://news.cbi.org.uk/news/leaving-eu-would-cause-a-serious-shock-to-uk-economy-new-pwc-analysis/
      It's a very long list indeed.

      >> no responsible government would actually trigger article 50. The likely (though not guaranteed) outcome is some huffing and puffing over the next year or so, and then some mechanism that allows the UK to remain in the EU with some fudge on migration concocted by the EU (think temporary derogation on 2004 EU accession countries).

      > I don't disagree or agree with this statement, I just think it could really go either way at this point.

      I genuinely hope it does not. The UK leaving the EU puts post-nationalism into reverse and not in a good way.

      It has the Putins, the Kims and the assorted West haters clicking their heels with glee but, in reality - the biggest loosers are the poor, while working class people who will have even less opportunities and even higher unemployment.

      You know down here in the Republic the people who vote Sinn Fein are typically the poorer, less educate

    3. Re:Yet another reason why Brexit won't happen by Ash-Fox · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yes peace is the objective but, we will not be compromising on EU law, just because Michael Gove, Nigel Farrage and Boris Johnson sold a bunch of lies to Northern England. The simple fact is that withdrawal from the EU is incompatible with the GFA. The European Union is the forum through which relations between the UK government and ROI government were normalised, leading to the bilateral approach to peace in NI.

      Was it? I thought it was through the ECHR which is NOT an EU institution.

      This is of course the core purpose of the EU, to bind old enemies together and make war unthinkable.

      We'll see how much they really want to prevent war.

      The fact that we have to have a conversation on - or even question the status of - peace, stability and normalcy in Norther Ireland is a direct result of the twisted and skewed leave campaign.

      Not for my vote, leave campaign had nothing to do with why I voted leave (I actually didn't listen to them, but I did listen to the remain campaigners), and I live in county Antrim.

      Are we really to believe that Ulster Unionism - which has always identified strongly with Scotland - is now indifferent to IndyRef2 ?

      You know, when people move from here to somewhere else in the UK, they rarely move to Scotland for a reason. I think people's own personal interests will outweigh unionism with Scotland alone.

      But seriously - is there anything more two-faced and self-serving than Ian Paisley Junior - campaigning for Brexit and then encouraging NI citizens to take up Irish passports so that the results of the referendum won't affect them so badly ?

      I personally don't see it as two faced, I see it as being reasonably prepared for all eventualities.

      It's a very long list indeed.

      That's a nicely done list.

      I genuinely hope it does not. The UK leaving the EU puts post-nationalism into reverse and not in a good way.

      I honestly think the common man does not give a crap about nationalism in the UK, but I do think they care about living a happy life and the expectation is that your government should make it possible for you, this is the EU's failing because if the EU provided it, then I truly believe this wouldn't have happened. If the EU sought to resolve issues in a timely fashion, I genuinely think that the referendum would have even been a political agenda.

      It has the Putins, the Kims and the assorted West haters clicking their heels with glee but, in reality - the biggest loosers are the poor, while working class people who will have even less opportunities and even higher unemployment.

      Thanks to the CFP, it's believed that over 100,000 jobs have been lost to it and growth is a negative number. You can find similar comparisons with the CAP or policies implemented by the IEEP etc. Not to mention events like the EU's ERM that caused industries to topple over and recessions.

      Provided that the UK does away with related legislation, I see no reason why the UK wouldn't be in a better position to give the poor better opportunities. Sure, we wouldn't have these large subsidies from the EU, but then in my view, long term, we wouldn't need them anyway.

      I am certain that in the short term, there will be some hardships, but long term, I expect the UK to be stronger for it and be capable of having a sustainable economy, living, trade, immigration, housing, healthcare etc.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    4. Re:Yet another reason why Brexit won't happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The poor, working class people will have it rough one way or another. There is no future for them. What the ruling class should provide is an easy way out for them while it's still possible.

    5. Re:Yet another reason why Brexit won't happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you should read the Good Friday agreement - it specifically stipulates

      "(iii) acknowledge that while a substantial section of the people in Northern Ireland share the legitimate wish of a majority of the people of the island of Ireland for a united Ireland, the present wish of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland, freely exercised and legitimate, is to maintain the Union and accordingly, that Northern Irelandüs status as part of the United Kingdom reflects and relies upon that wish; and that it would be wrong to make any change in the status of Northern Ireland save with the consent of a majority of its people;"

      In other words it specifically commits the British government NOT to make any status change to the constitutional position of Northern Ireland contrary to the wishes of the majority of Northern Ireland, in this specific context - the majority of Northern Ireland has voted to remain part of the EU. Therefore it is against the letter of the GFA to change Northern Ireland's status within the EU.

      http://www.wesleyjohnston.com/users/ireland/today/good_friday/full_text.html

    6. Re:Yet another reason why Brexit won't happen by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      In other words it specifically commits the British government NOT to make any status change to the constitutional position of Northern Ireland contrary to the wishes of the majority of Northern Ireland, in this specific context - the majority of Northern Ireland has voted to remain part of the EU. Therefore it is against the letter of the GFA to change Northern Ireland's status within the EU.

      Honestly, I think your interpretation is really off. Reading this particular quoted text you have provided, it seems clear to me it talks about Northern Ireland's status within the Union as in within the United Kingdom, where it's status in the United Kingdom does not change when the United Kingdom leaves. If it's being interpreted otherwise, I think the word of the agreement is not being followed.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
  24. Re: I'm still LOLing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No decent Canadian would ever write like you do, so I guess that you're an immigrant from the U.S.
    The time is nigh for Canada to build a wall on its borders and make U.S.icans pay for it!

  25. what are they really complaining about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That they can't do science or that they can't do science and keep their 100k paycheck.

  26. Lets tally this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So a left wing publication (washington post) reports on the fear of people who might lose state funding (but probably won't), and another left wing outlet (npr) reports a negative impact on the currency, forgetting that if the market was going to crash over this it would have already.

    Yay for false consensus and fear mongering. ..and before you left wing blow hards get your panties in wads, you know you'd be all over this if it was two right wing outlets misinterpreting one especially cold winter as 'proof' that climate change is bunk, and linking that to claims that coal is really a-ok to burn after all.

  27. You win some, you lose some by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 0

    Well, the vote didn't come out the "correct" way this time. They'll just have to deal with it! In the same way that the rest of Britain has had to deal with increasing EU interference in their lives, the scientists now are the ones out of luck. Sorry! These things happen when the government represents the interests of its own people instead of the interests of the globalist elite. Better luck next time!

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    1. Re:You win some, you lose some by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, the vote didn't come out the "correct" way this time. They'll just have to deal with it! In the same way that the rest of Britain has had to deal with increasing EU interference in their lives, the scientists now are the ones out of luck. Sorry! These things happen when the government represents the interests of its own people instead of the interests of the globalist elite. Better luck next time!

      Scientists should blame a good portion of the electorate that was for remaining in the EU but didn't go to vote because they didn't give a rat's ass about it. This is the greatest irony in the whole story.

    2. Re:You win some, you lose some by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      These things happen when the government represents the interests of its own people instead of the interests of the globalist elite

      Uh, what? You mean the referendum didn't benefit people who made a killing from the Murdoch press backing Leave? That the outcome won't benefit the people who were pushing for TTIP, whose strongest backer in the EU was the British prime minister and who are now pushing for a direct US/UK treaty that won't have the strong opposition from the European Parliament able to block it? That voting to take power from the people who just passed the General Data Protection Regulation and giving it to the people who just voted to pass the Investigatory Powers Bill is good for the people? That voting more power to the people in Westminster, who have consistently underspent per capita on the poorest areas in the EU at the expense of the City of London, and taking it away from the organisation that has been redressing that balance will help the people?

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    3. Re:You win some, you lose some by loonycyborg · · Score: 1

      These things happen when the government represents the interests of its own people instead of the interests of the globalist elite.

      Why would globalists want EU? In truely globalized world there can be no EU, as all countries are equally important parts of the world. EU is just next iteration of Holy Roman Empire, I'd call it Forth Reich. They're really prone to treat everyone outside EU like trash, kinda like Third Reich.

    4. Re:You win some, you lose some by umghhh · · Score: 1

      How do you know that abstainers would vote for remain?
      How do you know that abstainers did not make a conscious decision not to vote because for instance both options were considered bad?

  28. Old People by monkeyxpress · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    The trouble that Europe has is it is stuffed full of old people. That is why the place has the same level of visionary development as your grandparent's living room has had since the 1970s. Old people are at a different time in their life, and understandably care less for change and progress, but when they clog up the political system, they make life extremely grumpy and difficult.

    The trouble is that not all of Europe is old, and those who are young are getting tired of the 'waiting for death' and 'back in my day' mentality that is gripping the West. Globalization might have it's problems, but most young people are no longer under the illusion that their problems are being caused by that Greek or Chinese person who they partied with in Ibiza last year.

    The danger for the West is that there are other places with better demographics, and rapidly increasing standards of living. Europe should be busy trying to bring in young skilled workers from these places to offset the coming demographic cliff, and also encouraging young people to procreate. Instead they are closing off the borders, and making it harder and harder for young people to afford to start families by trying to extract all their earnings through rent seeking activities in the belief that storing fiat currency is a viable way to fund their pensions.

    It is hard to see how it will not all crash and burn at some point. The global retirement asset bubble thing will burst when the inflow of new money to the ponzi scheme declines (either from prices simply becoming impossible to afford by new entrants, or old people having to cash out) which will wipe out the supposed retirement savings of millions, forcing them to have to rely on state pensions. This will then set up a direct political contest (as opposed to the proxy contest going on in the housing/debt market right now) between young workers and pensioners. Stripped of the housing capital gains illusion, I think any young person who is not debt enslaved will vote with their feet at this point, which will accelerate the dependency ratio shrinkage (a problem Japan didn't have to deal with due to its tight knit culture).

    Eventually we'll reach a sensible compromise where young people will have to pay a bit more tax to prevent poverty among old people, and old people will have to accept a reduced standard of living in their retirement. Unfortunately it will be a bumpy road getting there, but that is how populous democracies solve these sorts of problems.

    1. Re:Old People by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 0, Insightful

      "Europe is stuffed full of old people"

      OK, let's go with this for a minute.

      "when they clog up the political system"

      In other words, when a representative government represents the interests of its own people? WTF? Are you actually criticizing this?

      " Europe should be busy trying to bring in young skilled workers from these places"

      Europe is busy importing millions of unskilled people from hostile lands who have nothing to contribute but votes for statists.

      "also encouraging young people to procreate"

      This is precisely what the EU doesn't want. In Germany this is known as "volkisch" behavior and it is regarded as pure racism.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    2. Re:Old People by umghhh · · Score: 1

      As for my reduced standard of living when I get to pension (btw you will get there too and sooner than you think) - it is getting reduced every year anyway by the virtue of governments arranging for policies that make my savings working less and spending my taxes on nonsense.
      As for more kids and more imports from elsewhere - this is most likely not sustainable - all countries where population grows above certain level end up with massive problems up to civil war. The immigration is a mixed blessing too - you migrate to a country that have criteria system in place you increase its pool of skilled people. You also decrease the pool of skilled people in the place you left behind. That actually makes a difference in certain countries (West Africa comes to mind but there are more). You have open borders policy of Germany you break your social systems eventually. US had a relatively good immigration system in which they did not sponsor the newcomers all that much so they had to work - that kind of worked. This does not work in Europe. There are also other problems with migration that one has to address or else you have riots and burning homes all over the place. Immigration is positive mostly but by no mean always and everywhere.

  29. Re: But they pay more to the EU than they get back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Importantly the EU distributed our money back to us in ways our own gov didn't - they recognise disadvantaged areas and have funded projects to improve the access to facilities that Londoners may take for granted.

  30. Re:I'm still LOLing... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2

    And the one party leader who had the guts to say that they were both bad choices and that 'remain and reform' should be the way forward was subsequently crucified by his MPs for doing so.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  31. Re:For An Article Concerning Scientific Research.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... the piece in the Washington Post is long on opinion and *very* short on fact.

    For example, the piece makes much of comments by Dame Jocelyn Bell Burnell, president of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, that one third of the teaching staff in Edinburgh hold EU passports and are "very twitchy right now". Well, that's real science, right there, eh? I mean, that's an empirical survey if ever there was one.

    What the British Government has said (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36916836) is that it wants and expects to protect the rights of EU workers currently living in Britain, but that such protections would be conditional upon EU countries providing the same protections for UK citizens living in the EU. That doesn't seem reasonable, but it doesn't explain the scaremongering attempted by the Washington Post.

    I guess it is worth pointing out that President Obama and the US Administration were very much in favour of the UK remaining within the EU. Washington saw the UK membership of the EU as a lever it could apply to get the EU to go along with things like TTIP and joint military participation with operations like those in Afghanistan and Iraq.

    In other words, you have to treat this article in exactly the same way that a scientist would treat a claim that some random sub-atomic particle could travel faster than the speed of light: look for substantiating evidence; look for corroboration; examine the sources of evidence; look at the statistical significance of the sampled data, and so on.

    This rather shoddy article contains a lot of supposition, suggestion and conjecture, but it has been very selective in it's reporting of "facts".

    Nothing to see here. Move along, move along.

    It is exactly the Eastern European immigrant workers that the Leave voters wanted to throw out -- who else could it possible be? So for her to turn around and say that of course the Polish immigrant workers will be safe, while painting the whole thing as some kind of EU-initiated attack on the rights of British pensioners abroad, is disingenuous to say the least.

    The Home Office is probably preparing systems for mass work visa applications for any and all EU nationals while the politicians wring their hands. And given the history of the Home Office under the leadership of Mrs. May, large numbers of those applications will be turned down.

  32. Re: But they pay more to the EU than they get back by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

    And yet the areas that had benefitted most from this bought the lie that they'd be better off voting more power to the people who'd been screwing them for the last few decades.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  33. This has NOTHING to do with worker right by aepervius · · Score: 2

    The article is about sciences grant, collaborations. Let us say you had a lab in Frankfurt wanting to have a 5 year collab on a subject, and they have the choice between an UK lab and a swedisch one. Which one do you think would be safe form them to take ? Excately : not the UK one. And to add , let us say you are a researcher in UK getting an EU grant. What hapenned afterward ? *maybe* the rgant runs to tis end, but afterward ? Well here you go . no more EU grant and now the Uk has to give more grants to *keep* the same funding amount of science, and the collaboration is not as easy anymore. What this has to do with worker right ? Nothing whatsoever.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
    1. Re:This has NOTHING to do with worker right by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      Let us say you had a lab in Frankfurt wanting to have a 5 year collab on a subject, and they have the choice between an UK lab and a swedisch one. Which one do you think would be safe form them to take ?

      That is easy, even before brexit, go with the Swedes. They have better teeth plus there is always this.

      --
      Time to offend someone
  34. Pro Remain propaganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    'Freaking Out' is now newsworthy? Shame on you Slashdot.

  35. Time for a Slashdot Poll . . . by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 4, Funny

    I am a British scientist and am freaking out.

    I am a British scientist and am not freaking out.

    I have nothing to do with the EU and don't give a rat's ass about the whole matter.

    I am from Scotland and the English can go shave the Queen's.

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
  36. Re: But they pay more to the EU than they get bac by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most of our physical exports were import-based.
    We can sure export cheaper now the pound crashed! Oh, wait.
    We can't devalue our currency like China. We're fucking nothing. An ant. We don't have the sort of resources to compete internationally.

    Brexit fuckwits that seriously think we can survive on the service sector are delusional.
    Hope you didn't like any of those foods we imported, they are only going to get more expensive.
    As is every other consumable.

  37. What you really should fear: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Certainty.

    Think about it, or read Anti-Fragile.

  38. Re:I'm still LOLing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the UK is America's 51st state

    The The - Heartland

  39. Re: But they pay more to the EU than they get back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    true around 10% of the contributions, but UK is ranked ninth sorted by % of GNI and fourth by share. For from the most generous relative to population.

  40. Eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Eh, not sure what you are saying. He HAD said that he would stand down in case of a Brexit. You are saying he didn't give them enough time? In any case, he is a complete douche for being the one who called for the referendum and then taking off like that. And yes, politicians are douches anyway, but he took it to another level.
    On the other hand, the Brexit supporters spent their time spinning the actual facts (£350mill/week to NHS lol) instead of actually doing any work on what would really happen on a Brexit. Guess what, they didn't do any work on that because it's hard to impossible to come out ahead with a Brexit and they know it.

    1. Re:Eh? by ytene · · Score: 1

      Very Sorry, AC, I honestly had not come across any evidence of Cameron saying that he would stand down if he lost.

      Golly, I reckon that if more people had been aware of that, even more would have voted for exit than the 52% majority...

  41. ahh didums by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are the poor little fears going to have to join the large number of the British population that have suffered cutback after cutback for almost ten years since the last big crash,you know,the ones who don't get houseing benefit or any other benefit because their to ill or damaged to work,the folk who don't get their operations because of the cutbacks in the nhs,etc etc etc.
    It must be awful having to face the reality of the world they live in,or do they expect to be cocooned for their entire life while everybody else suffers but still have to contribute through taxes to keep usless hobby followers in cushty jobs and lifestyles..
    Pull yer heads out of yer arses and look at what's going on around you,if so many of you are meant to be so bloody brilliant,go into private industry and come up with something very useful that people will pay you for..
    You have had crusty protected lives for decades,now join the real world...
    Me,I can think of dozens of projects etc that I would love to 've able to study,especially if the public's tax money is going to pay me to follow hobby interests,get it through your supposedly smart heads that the country can not afford even basic benefits for large numbers of people,benefits they have helped contribute to for decades with taxes etc,how are we meant to pay FOR you lot as well ?

  42. That's false dichotomy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Europe is a competitor not a supermarket. Trade deficit is a net loss due to trade. Pretending a deficit isn't a loss is just words. It's not a "cost of doing business", other countries in the EU trade at a profit.

    "...if we could source the goods we import from the EU more cheaply elsewhere"

    That's a false dichotomy. You can also source the goods and services domestically, or not import optional goods at all. Both those reduce the trade loss.

    Your argument is really the classic : "make up the losses in the volume" that loss-making companies make. You really cannot do this, you need to keep borrowing and borrowing to cover those losses. In Britains case it's been privatizing to keep the inflow of cash into the UK. e.g. China building a nuclear power plant. But that cash has not resulted in a net trade gain. It's not productive investment into the UK as it is false presented as.

    1. Re:That's false dichotomy by jeremyp · · Score: 1

      The EU isn't a competitor: the UK is currently part of the EU. How can it be a competitor with part of itself?

      Even the countries in the EU are not competitors. No, companies in the UK are competing with companies in the rest of the EU but at the higher level, it's better to work together than against each other. Economics is not a zero sum game. France doing well does not mean the UK has to do badly. In fact, success reinforces success.

      --
      All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
    2. Re:That's false dichotomy by Andreas+Mayer · · Score: 2

      Trade deficit is a net loss due to trade.

      No, it's not. You got something for that money after all. Or do you call every buy a loss?

      You can also source the goods and services domestically, or not import optional goods at all. Both those reduce the trade loss.

      Then why don't you? The EU doesn't mandate that you do not buy from within your own country.

    3. Re:That's false dichotomy by HuguesT · · Score: 1

      Nobody is forcing the UK consumers and companies to buy goods from the EU rather than the rest of the world. If they do, it is because they represent a better deal. Imposing trade barrier with the EU is not going to improve the situation, it will make it worse. It will reduce choice and availability, which will make UK businesses worse of. As a start, all of he UK activities that require free trade with the rest of the EU will cease. This includes most of the City as the financial hub of the EU.

      If you think that the UK economy will be better off without the City, you definitely need some education.

  43. Re:I'm still LOLing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I assume you're talking about Corbyn... who was going to be crucified by his MPs regardless of what he said because of reasons that are largel;y unrelated to the EU referendum.

    His stance on the EU was probobly his weakest moment. He's spent his entire political career lambasting the EU for having a democratic deficiet and basically being a great thing for bankers and the rich and powerfull but bad for most other people in the long run. He tried to keep us out and tried to get us to leave, along with the likes of Tony Benn and Dennis Skinner. It seemed pretty obvious that his about-face on the issue was purely an attempt to mollify the Blairites in his party, which was ultimatly futile.

    The EU does not want to be reformed and is not really set up for massive reforms. There's a reason EU MPs cannot propose or repeal legislation, it's by design. There's a reason Junker talks about decracy with a dismissive disdain. I'm convinced the whole "remain and reform" thing was the only thing Corbyn could have said without being a hypocrite while also keeping the worst parts of the labour party happy. It didn't work on both counts. He's probobly glad.

  44. Re:For An Article Concerning Scientific Research.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What the British Government has said is that it wants and expects to protect the rights of EU workers currently living in Britain, but that such protections would be conditional upon EU countries providing the same protections for UK citizens living in the EU.

    And how does that invalidate any point you made? From the perspective of an EU national in the UK there is an admittedly small risk your right to work won't be protected. Even if it is then you have no idea how your residence in the UK will be supported. Will you be able to return to a different EU nation and return freely to the UK again afterwards, will you be entitled to all the same benefits and services as a UK national, will family members/partners who joined you in the UK after the referendum date be able to stay etc etc? Even if all the answers are almost certainly it's still a big concern.

    Regardless of your view overall of the referendum it doesn't take much empathy to be able to realise that this result was bound to lead to a lot of EU nationals working in the UK being very worried.

  45. Like a bad Dr. Who episode by Orgasmatron · · Score: 1

    The Doctor and Clara find themselves under attack by a robot/computer/whatever still fighting a war that was lost thousands of years ago.

    Actually, I think I saw that on Gilligan's Island too, but with a Japanese submarine.

    Anyhow, the Brexit vote is in the past, but parts of Project Fear were damaged in the fighting and are now unable to comprehend that the war is over. Meanwhile, reality is turning out to be the exact opposite of most of the doom and gloom predictions.

    --
    See that "Preview" button?
  46. Re:I'm still LOLing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do you thin the EU wants poor men Northern Ireland or Scotland?

  47. inevitable by sugar+and+acid · · Score: 2

    The science was always going to be the first one to be hit from brexit. Basically the system is based on funding collaborations across the EU, and rightly or wrongly, collaboration groups are dropping UK based research institutes as a high risk to the projects funding prospects. There has been no real impact yet as very few grants have been awarded since the vote, but as we see the next few rounds of various Horizon 2020 EU grant scheme go through we will see a drop in funding going to the UK.

    Next that will be obvious is the decrease in funding for regional development, and that will be when it starts to impact the people that actually voted to leave. That is going to take a year or so to become obvious.

    My frustration with the referendum is that the leave side of the vote wasn't actually had no specific actions assigned to it in the law that set it up, in the end it was a very expensive nation wide opinion poll on EU membership. In a way, people who voted leave didn't actually vote for anything concrete.

    The vote should have had article 50 legislatively tied to the vote when the referendum was first setup, with an automatic and immediate invocation of it outside the control of the UK parliament and prime minister. It would have dramatically curtailed the leave campaigns ability to basically come up with contradictory and fanciful scenarios of what voting leave would mean, it would have been a much starker and obvious choice.

    1. Re:inevitable by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 2

      The vote should have had article 50 legislatively tied to the vote when the referendum was first setup, with an automatic and immediate invocation of it outside the control of the UK parliament and prime minister.
      Would not work. How should it? Without the parliament voting for leaving they can not invoke Article 50.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  48. Non issue i think? by Truekaiser · · Score: 1

    Weren't they cutting funding anyway despite the vote?

  49. Re: But they pay more to the EU than they get ba by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Dude, get over it. We brexited. Deal with it.

  50. Re:I'm still LOLing... by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 3, Funny

    "Face it, Canada is rapidly rising to be the next dominant superpower, both politically and economically. We're also far smarter than the Europeans and Americans, so we won't repeat their mistakes and we'll be here to stay at the top."

    And thanks to global warming, in another century or so it will be a tolerable place to live.

  51. Re: I'm still LOLing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hah! Donald will build that wall, and gold plate it WITH HIS OWN MONEY. He's got huge money, you know. Enormous, really. He'll sacrifice it for The Great America's need for a Wall Against Meddling Canada. There'll be a door in it, a big door, for Canadian beer, because that's what they're good at, right?

  52. Re: I'm still LOLing... by tripleevenfall · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Virtually everything you read about Brexit in the media before and after the referendum has been FUD.

    Britain was one of the world's most prosperous, safe, and culturally advanced nations for over a thousand years.

    I'm sure they will do just fine as they watch the EU collapse under the weight of their open borders policies

  53. Re:I'm still LOLing... by jellomizer · · Score: 4, Informative

    If the UK voted to leave the EU, there is little chance that it will vote to join the U.S.
    The last time we tried to acquire Canada, Washington DC burned down.

    At the moment the U.S. has plenty to worry about than trying to expand it property. An election of two rather unpopular candidates (With one being batshit crazy, who seems to have conned much of the uneducated portion of the population). In a world that wants us to get more involved and less involved at the same time. While trying to maintain the growth and prosperity it achieved after it was the only major country that didn't have its infrastructure knocked out from WWII.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  54. Re: I'm still LOLing... by bluelip · · Score: 1, Troll

    Scumbag news article is trying to say that vacationing abroad is a good thing. Unless you're Disney, support vacationing in your own country.

    Less issues of picking up a disease your body cannot handle and your money goes back into your economy.

    The EU and globalization in general is a scam.

    --

    Yep, I never spell check.
    More incorrect spellings can be found he
  55. Re:I'm still LOLing... by bluelip · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Dissolve the EU. It serves no person only the corporations.

    --

    Yep, I never spell check.
    More incorrect spellings can be found he
  56. Y2K was a serious but overblown problem by sjbe · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Y2K passed off with barely a whimper because millions of software engineers around the planet took it seriously and worked their asses off for a good 6 months to make their software cope with the year ticking over to 2000.

    Much of that work was frankly unnecessary. Not all the code was fixed on time and some countries spent very little on Y2K remediation (South Korea, Italyand yet they experienced very few problems. Millions of small businesses did virtually zero remediation and yet they experienced virtually zero problems. While I'm not arguing that all the remediation was useless (much was definitely necessary) the problem was definitely blown out of proportion and there is copious evidence to support that assertion.

    Additional contractors were engaged almost around the clock at extortionate rates in the final months, because there was so much code to remedy.

    That was because large companies were worried about liability if by some chance something should go wrong. Consulting companies made a ton of money selling Y2K remediation to credulous executives for several years before the actual year 2000 arrived. Basically they were buying expensive insurance for a problem that they didn't fully understand.

    The thanks go to all the engineers who worked ridiculous hours to keep the systems you rely on from falling apart.

    Those engineers got paid to work those hours. You make it sound as if it was some heroic sacrifice on their part. Never mind that it was (mostly other) software engineers that created the problem in the first place by utilizing bad programming practices over the preceding decades.

    1. Re:Y2K was a serious but overblown problem by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 5, Interesting

      While I'm not arguing that all the remediation was useless (much was definitely necessary) the problem was definitely blown out of proportion and there is copious evidence to support that assertion.

      Says someone who has no clue about the problem. As the rest of your post shows.

      I fixed about 1.5 millin lines of code written in COBOL and PL1. (Two different projects, the PL1 Job was only a quallity assurance as the original code was already fixed: "manually by the consultants you hate", while my company used a kind of specialized compiler)

      The company where I fixed the close to 1 Million lines COBOL code woke up regarding the Y2K problem very late. They just got bought by an american company. And the new directors went ape shit when they realized the Y2K problem was not even tackled yet (that was mid 1998).

      The company would have been out of business now, if we had not fixed ist software. And so would beall the customers of said company!!!

      While we worked on such projects we had a partner company, a spin off from IBM basically but based on the Software Tool Chain that was developed by a Belgium/Dutch Company in an Erasmus project. (European EU wide distributed research Projects, mainly done in universities, partly in spin offs)

      We had a joined venture with the Netherlands branch of "TriLoc Software Engineering, Milwaukee".

      Basically every Company whee we fixed the code for would not have survived if we had not (or if we had made majour mistakes).

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    2. Re:Y2K was a serious but overblown problem by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Your list of countries that spent very little on remediation are not known as tech powerhouses. You know that the companies (in their countries) that developed the software were the ones who had to spend a lot of money to fix it?

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    3. Re:Y2K was a serious but overblown problem by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Yeah, your examples of "companies wouldn't survive" is kind of underwhelming compared to the predictions. I didn't get it at first either (because my primary source of info about Y2K at the time was the Communications of the ACM). Then my sister asked me, "are we going to die because of y2k?" She had the idea that power everywhere was going to be cut, marauders would be raiding on the horizon, nuclear power plants would explode........basically the end of everything. Y2K was blown out of proportion in the media.

      btw the PL/1 project sounds kind of cool.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    4. Re:Y2K was a serious but overblown problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      > I fixed about 1.5 millin lines of code written in COBOL and PL1.

      You had 1.5 million lines of code handling dates incorrectly? How on earth is that possible.

    5. Re:Y2K was a serious but overblown problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      To give a supporting example, we were a smaller company (~200 developers) and we had 70% of our developers on standby, with people pulling double shifts during the Y2K shift. Devs were standing by literally to start fixing items just in case the last 8 months of testing failed to catch all the issues.

      Y2K was not overblown in many aspects. Sure some of the news reporting got out of hand; but, it had a real chance of bringing down a lot.

      And if you don't believe me, the software I was working on was power grid distribution control software. Try to imagine a "mostly North and South America" outage.

      New York's massive outage (due to security controls and poor tree trimming) took a week to fix. And while more of the grid went down due to the security controls working, if those controls didn't work, instead of rebooting a large piece of the grid, you'd be rebuilding power generation plants (think 2 to 3 years before operational)

  57. Re: But they pay more to the EU than they get bac by Barsteward · · Score: 1

    of course we can devalue the pound if we want to, that was the purpose of not joining the euro

    --
    "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
  58. Empires fall by sjbe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Britain was one of the world's most prosperous, safe, and culturally advanced nations for over a thousand years.

    That's no guarantee that it will remain so. The British Empire is a shadow of what it was just 100 years ago.

    I'm sure they will do just fine as they watch the EU collapse under the weight of their open borders policies

    If the EU collapses for any reason it won't be because of their border policies. The thing most likely to cause the EU to fail is the problem of fixed exchange rates within the currency union. In a single country like the US, capital and labor can flow relatively freely to where it is needed when there are imbalances between regions. But since the EU is comprised of sovereign countries when you get a region in financial distress (see Greece) they have the problem of effectively having fixed exchange rates between sovereign states with more limited labor and capital mobility.

    If Greece was still on the drachma, their exchange rate would have adjusted in response to the economic problems. But since they effectively had a fixed exchange rate, they get the problems of a fixed exchange rate. It's not clear that the EU can manage this problem in the long term. Note the already tense and clumsy response to the Greek bailouts. If a bigger economy within the EU (say Spain or France), were to run into similar problems the problem might become too large to handle.

    I'm not saying the EU will collapse but if anything causes it to, it most likely will be the failure of the monetary union rather than immigration policy.

    1. Re:Empires fall by khallow · · Score: 1

      If the EU collapses for any reason it won't be because of their border policies. The thing most likely to cause the EU to fail is the problem of fixed exchange rates within the currency union. In a single country like the US, capital and labor can flow relatively freely to where it is needed when there are imbalances between regions. But since the EU is comprised of sovereign countries when you get a region in financial distress (see Greece) they have the problem of effectively having fixed exchange rates between sovereign states with more limited labor and capital mobility.

      You do realize that in single countries like the US they have nothing but fixed exchange rates? Texas dollars are the same as California dollars. They also have similar problems to the Greek bailouts (for example, problems with solvency of some of the states/territories in higher debt such as Illinois or Puerto Rico).

    2. Re:Empires fall by William+Baric · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Immigration policy is the first reason why Brexit happened. Immigration policies is why more and more people in other European countries now think about their own exit from the EU. Immigration policy is the first reason for the popularity of far-right parties. Immigration policy is destroying social cohesion.

      If the EU collapses, it will be because of immigration policy.

    3. Re:Empires fall by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Informative

      The important difference is that taxes in states like Texas and California are moved by the Federal government to states with weaker economies. This helps to ensure that the difference in purchasing power between a dollar in Texas and a dollar in Alaska is not too great. The Germans vetoed such a mechanism in the Eurozone, which economists at the time said was required to prevent exactly the kind of crisis that we've seen over the last few years.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    4. Re:Empires fall by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The borders will have something to do with that. Too many more Nice-style attacks, and you will see a shift to the right in all EU members, and as of now, no EU state is doing anything to prevent future attacks due to politics.

    5. Re:Empires fall by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullshit. Than I do not know why the UK complained so much about paying more money than they are receiving. Not that flow of money is the only compensation for being a paying member.

    6. Re:Empires fall by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When labor markets collapse (they never collapse completely!) in say, Alabama, then laborers move to the newfound jobs in South Dakota. Happens all the time. Also, as has been previously noted, no state in the US is within an least two orders of magnitude of the problems in Greece.

      But leave it to some European who has never been to the US to claim that we have the same issues that the Eurozone has. Imagine, for example, that with 5/6ths the population, the USA has almost twice the income that the Eurozone has... then tell me how bad off we in the USA are.

    7. Re:Empires fall by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Free movement of people is more important than preventing some attacks. Ten, one hundred, even one thousand dead are nothing, really, compared to a 600-million strong market. This is the problem with lay people, they are too absorbed by their petty, small, insignificant problems to see the Big Picture. For this we have the European Commission, which does not have to deal with the common folk's meaningless crap. The fate of Europe is more important than the life of some replaceable citizen-consumer. And that is all there is to it, really.

    8. Re:Empires fall by Darinbob · · Score: 2

      Used to have such a problem in the US. During the dust bowl there was a backlash against "Okies" moving to other states. At the a lot of people were labeled Okies even if they weren't from Oklahoma and only because they were from out of state and looking for a job. California even put up police at the borders for awhile to turn back people who had no money. And then Arizona was mad because they were stuck with the migrants instead.

      Of course, there was sympathy because these were white migrants. The same didn't apply to legal Mexican workers (who's family had been in the state before it was in the US) and Filipino workers (Phillipines was a US possession at the time).

    9. Re:Empires fall by TemporalBeing · · Score: 1

      The important difference is that taxes in states like Texas and California are moved by the Federal government to states with weaker economies. This helps to ensure that the difference in purchasing power between a dollar in Texas and a dollar in Alaska is not too great. The Germans vetoed such a mechanism in the Eurozone, which economists at the time said was required to prevent exactly the kind of crisis that we've seen over the last few years.

      Have you been to Alaska? Or Hawaii? Both are very expensive to live in; not as bad as NYC, but not good either. Though wages in each typically adjusts.

      There are reason why wages are disparate in various regions in the US - cost of Living in Columbia, SC is different than Atlanta, GA, or NYC, NY, Wasilla, AK, Seattle, WA, Provo, UT, etc. How far a dollar goes in any one those is different. A dollar in Columbia, SC will certainly go little bit farther than it does in Atlanta, GA, and much further than it would in NYC, NY.

      --
      Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
    10. Re:Empires fall by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      In this, the Euro is at a bad level of integration. Greece would be much better off with either a drachma that can fall in value internationally but still leave enough in circulation to run the Greek economy, or if it had real help from other EU members rather than financial colonization.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    11. Re:Empires fall by ralph.corderoy · · Score: 1

      No, polls done after Brexit consistently show the prime reason for over 50% of those that voted Leave was sovereignty; for one's elected parliament to have control over its laws. Immigration rules was the prime reason for about 30%.

  59. Re:I'm still LOLing... by JustBoo · · Score: 1

    [...] Face it, Canada is rapidly rising to be the next dominant superpower, both politically and economically. We're also far smarter than the Europeans and Americans, so we won't repeat their mistakes and we'll be here to stay at the top.

    LOL is right. I'm still laughing as I type this. Thanks, I needed that. Canada... world leader... bwhahahahahahhaaaaa. Nice one. Woohoo....

  60. Funding Levels Not Grant Allocation by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 2

    I mean there's the Replication Crisis to consider, and the Decline Effect, and then somewhere north of 40,000 neurology papers that were a waste of time

    Actually your examples point to the problem which is not how the grants are assigned within a field but the level of funding between different fields. The effects you point to are all predominantly (but not exclusively) related to medical sciences. This is an area where politicians, corporations and the public love to pour huge quantities of money into because of the intense personal connection medicine has to all of us.

    A perfect grant allocation system will give the most promising research ideas the highest priority for funding until all the funds are allocated. This means that the more funds you have the lower the quality of research that will be funded even if you have a perfect allocation system. This is what I believe we are seeing today with a good, but obviously not perfect, allocation system.

    The solution is to redirect research funding away from medicine to other areas of science. This will have the effect of increasing the output of other fields which will lead to discoveries some of which will in turn help advance medicine as well as advance productivity so we can pay for all the new medical techniques being developed. However this is hard to do because while we all have a strong personal connection directly or through loved ones to curing things like cancer or heart disease very few people have a strong personal connection to making a better battery, understanding superconductivity, finding the nature of Dark Matter or solving quantum gravity etc.

    1. Re:Funding Levels Not Grant Allocation by The+Real+Dr+John · · Score: 2

      It is absurd to complain about how much money goes to different areas of scientific research while not complaining even more about the money wasted on offense, er... I mean "defense". If just 5% of the military budget (over $600 billion if you count overseas contingency operations) was redirected to the NIH (somewhere around $35 billion in funding) then you would literally double the NIH budget, and put lots of out-of-work scientists back to work. Over half a million people die young from cancer, but the military budget to supposedly stop a few terrorist attacks (which never get stopped despite the wasted money) is vastly larger than the cancer budget. The military can't even audit their own books, and they have no idea where billions of dollars went. Talk about waste.

      --
      A brain is a terrible thing to waste... Mind? That's debatable.
    2. Re:Funding Levels Not Grant Allocation by Fragnet · · Score: 1

      You're pushing at an open door with me if you suggest funding should be directed away from these areas. At least until they start replicating and/or stop p-hacking.

  61. Re: I'm still LOLing... by michelcolman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Britain was one of the world's most prosperous, safe, and culturally advanced nations for over a thousand years.

    So was Greece. And Rome. And Egypt.

  62. Re: I'm still LOLing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, it does. The Scottish and Irish both have good support.

    It will be rough as hell but we will survive the changes.

  63. Re:I'm still LOLing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I should've realized! All the bad science with regard to global warming is a misdirection ploy on behalf of an unholy alliance of Canada, Russia, Norway, Sweden, Greenland, and Cuba! (Cuba having negotiated right to claim a few of those Canadian islands as "New Cuba")

    Ten to fifteen degrees from now, the Arctic Alliance will own 80% of viable farmland and a similar portion of what we would now call temperate climate.

  64. Yet more Brexit Balls by khz6955 · · Score: 1

    Most of this is a cynical exercise by companies using Brexit as a pretext to engage in mass lay off and withdraw from their commitments despite receiving massive subsidies from the local governments.

    how Britain will look after Brexit

  65. That phrase needs to die by damn_registrars · · Score: 2

    I'm really tired of hearing of people "Freaking Out" over anything. That phrase has become so overused that it not only doesn't mean what it used to mean, it barely means anything at all any more. It used to be reserved for something that was nearly a complete psychotic breakdown, now it means any time someone has to find another box of kleenex, finds their pen is out of ink, or that their favorite starbucks barista is out sick.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    1. Re:That phrase needs to die by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't have a cow, man!

    2. Re:That phrase needs to die by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

      The phrase "have a cow" is vastly less obnoxious than "freaking out".

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    3. Re:That phrase needs to die by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...along with "s/he destroyed the argument" which doesn't seem to mean a complete dismantling of an argument as it means a slight counter or highlighting an alternative view/outcome

  66. Re:I'm still LOLing... by johannesg · · Score: 4, Interesting

    We will fix the EU, but the only language it understands is this one. Here's to my country leaving as well!

    The correct way to build the EU would have been to grow it slowly, over a period of generations. Forcing it in a few years, using immigration as a weapon against the identity of the people of Europe, for no better reasons than power, money, and glory for a handful of unelected bureaucrats, is shameful and doomed to fail.

    Once the coming civil war is over and the guilty have been sentenced, then we can consider a new union. One that actually respects the people and cultures it unifies.

  67. Free movement of labor and capital by sjbe · · Score: 4, Informative

    You do realize that in single countries like the US they have nothing but fixed exchange rates? Texas dollars are the same as California dollars.

    The US also has free movement of labor and capital within the country which is how economic imbalances get solved. If New Jersey has economic troubles, the labor and capital can (relatively) easily move to another state. If labor costs in Michigan get out of line, the business moves to Georgia and the people as well. The Federal government controls the currency and acts to help allocate it where needed. Some states effectively subsidize others. Workers can become a citizen of another state simply by moving there. A Greek citizen cannot become a French citizen nearly so easily and the EU has the single currency but they do not have the ability to move capital and labor around as easily to deal with imbalances in local economic conditions.

    They also have similar problems to the Greek bailouts (for example, problems with solvency of some of the states/territories in higher debt such as Illinois or Puerto Rico).

    The problems in various US states bear little resemblance to the Greek bailout unless you squint really hard and don't go any deeper than the fact that they are related to debt service. The problems in Puerto Rico are solvable if Congress and/or the Executive branch could be bothered to give the island any attention and they are much easier problems to solve than the Greek ones. Interestingly many of the problems in Puerto Rico are challenging precisely because it is not a State. If it were there would be more tools available to them.

    1. Re: Free movement of labor and capital by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      Free movement of labour and capital are the foundation of the EU.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    2. Re:Free movement of labor and capital by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NJ currently does have economic troubles. The free movement of labor and capital hasn't fixed them.

      The moving of factories from the North to the South is a matter of huge debate. The U.S. could implement one country-wide labor law that prevents that from happening (by reducing the differences in labor costs). For a similar reason, some protectionist laws against China might be passed.

      People are residents of States, not citizens. There's not huge difference among Americans. Most speak English (assuming illegals aren't granted amnesty). When they move to a new area, they accept the prevailing wages and cost of living. They don't function as cheap labor the way illegals or some EU migrants would.

    3. Re: Free movement of labor and capital by lars_stefan_axelsson · · Score: 1

      Free movement of labour and capital are the foundation of the EU.

      Yes. But it had to be made explicit since it isn't natural. And even with the EU forcing the issue it still doesn't work that well, for labour at least, since there are the two large barriers of culture and language to overcome. The cultural and language differences within the US are minuscule compared to the differences between even many neighbouring countries within the EU with a long history.

      So in the US you have "true" and "natural" mobility, in the EU its very much artificial, forced and doesn't work nearly as well.

      --
      Stefan Axelsson
    4. Re: Free movement of labor and capital by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      The same cultural and linguistic barriers can happen inside a single country as well. Take me for example - I am a German, but I can't understand Bavarians at all. They speak an unintelligible dialect and their habits are strange. I feel better connected in, say, the Czech republic than in Bavaria.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    5. Re: Free movement of labor and capital by lars_stefan_axelsson · · Score: 1

      Sure they can. And they do exist within the US as well, don't get me wrong.

      However, the USian is much, much more accustomed to moving great distances for school, and work. Clear across the continent in many cases. And even though there are differences in language, culture etc. even within the "same" culture (e.g. WASP), they are generally easier to overcome. People expect them to be easy to overcome.

      And the TV-shows that are popular are the same in both places. It's the same network. That's perhaps the most striking display of "sameness" that's not at all present in Europe. Well, unless it's an American show, like "Game of Thrones"...

      --
      Stefan Axelsson
    6. Re: Free movement of labor and capital by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      Free movement of labour and capital are the foundation of the EU.

      And the free movement of labour is half fictional when 44% still speak only one language.

    7. Re: Free movement of labor and capital by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      I speak three languages fluently and understand reasonably well another two. These who move freely are either multilingual or move to countries with the same or very similar language.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    8. Re: Free movement of labor and capital by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't feel bad, in the US, we feel similar about Texans. Well at least we can understand them, sometimes.

  68. Re:I'm still LOLing... by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 2, Informative

    With one being batshit crazy, who seems to have conned much of the uneducated portion of the population

    Well, we know now from the leaked emails that she would never have gotten the Democratic nomination if it hadn't been rigged in her favor.

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  69. How cute by s.petry · · Score: 1

    Someone learned what a fallacy was and now claims everything is a fallacy.

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    1. Re:How cute by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Still ad-hominem.

  70. Re: I'm still LOLing... by Maritz · · Score: 1, Troll

    Britain was one of the world's most prosperous, safe, and culturally advanced nations for over a thousand years.

    An aggressive cunt of a nation that is finally due its comeuppance. The fact that leaving the EU is a self-inflicted injury is hilarious.

    Enjoy your newfound irrelevance. Nigeria will overtake your economy in size in the next few years but I'm just major trading blocs will be queueing up to cut deals with you. LOL.

    --
    I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
  71. Well by fireylord · · Score: 1

    As a 'remainer' I seriously didn't want this course of events.

    Now however it seems to me that our best bet would be to join the EEA (which is basically 'Soft Brexit'), since this gets us out of the customs union. It'll also minimise the damage overall. This means renegotiating all the curent EU trade deals again, so thats rather alot of work to do in any case.
    The only silver lining to this would be the ability to negotiate trade deals where the EU feared to tread. Whether this would be affective, and not disastrous, does depend on the agendas of the UK negotiators. With Liam Fox in charge of this process I am NOT confident. He'll be doing deals for the benefit of his corporate chums, not the UK as a whole.
      Full USAian TTIP with the ISCS supranational secret court screwing UK small business and industry as well as UK people is a nightmare waiting to happen. We'll see a depression like the worst in the US Rust belt. (This was due to unrestricted globalisation with no thought paid to the damage it would do to those businesses and people in the Rust belt, and no mitigation in place to help).

  72. Re:I'm still LOLing... by Maritz · · Score: 0

    The British xenophobes that use the occasion to celebrate their idiocy are of no help here however.

    Those xenophobes, who voted leave and then googled "what is the EU" the next day, are the majority in the UK. That's why it will continue to get worse. Quite why they think they're better than just about anyone on earth astonishes me when you consider there are plenty of reflective surfaces around in public spaces.

    --
    I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
  73. Re:For An Article Concerning Scientific Research.. by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

    Didn't France say that the TTIP was dead because of this?

  74. Re:I'm still LOLing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is the UK which veto's / votes against most reforms ....

  75. Re:I'm still LOLing... by Opportunist · · Score: 1, Troll

    The last time we tried to acquire Canada, Washington DC burned down.

    Well, if that's not a good reason to try again, what is?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  76. Lower pound exchange rate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Time to order your 3D printer, hotend or extruder from E3D!

  77. Tampax anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Never mind that it was (mostly other) software engineers that created the problem in the first place by utilizing bad programming practices over the preceding decades.

    Actually it was the penny pinching companies that ignored/refused or delayed fixing the Y2K bug that are at the root of the problem.

    Its like blaming the plumbers fixing the clog you made by stuffing tampons down the drain.

  78. Amusement Parks! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now that the industries are retreating, science funding is dwindling and the pound is lowering there is a great future in Britain for amusement parks and recreation facilities. All those mansions, ruins, battle sites, castles and grown jewels should all get a shot of funding for the new facilities necessary to host the masses of tourists interested for the new, cheap Britain!

  79. Re:I'm still LOLing... by Suferick · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Not even that - a narrow majority of the votes cast, which on a 70% turnout approximates to 36% of the electorate. There is (or soon will be) a 40% threshold for strikes in health, education and transport to be valid. So a level of support that cannot even validate a one-day strike by, say, teachers, is sufficient to jeopardise Britain's prosperity, territorial integrity and foreign relations?

  80. Rule Britani...whaaa? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Centuries of history have proved quite categorically is you threaten the UK people or put their backs to the wall they will lash out.

    Yeah - when you still had an empire buddy. Look around, not so much now.

  81. Re:I'm still LOLing... by Suferick · · Score: 2

    Sorry, this belongs below, in response to the comment about the result being the majority of English voters. Scotland, Northern Ireland and London voted firmly to remain.

  82. Brexit Killed COP21 And AGW And Kyoto by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No money, redistributed from other countries, kill of the Political Religion of Climate Science.

    Now Brits can go back to mining and burning coal like the rest and buy air conditioners for the summer and heaters for the winter.

    Looks like Al Gore will have a bit of trouble paying for his "sex ranch" in Thailand outside of "Bang Cock".

    Ha ha
       

  83. Exceptions that prove the rule by sjbe · · Score: 2

    Says someone who has no clue about the problem. As the rest of your post shows.

    You have no idea what my background is so you're not really in a position to judge. Furthermore the public facts are that there is a ton of evidence that Y2K simply wasn't as big a problem as it was made out to be. There were a few bits that definitely needed some serious fixing but the hype around the problem exceeded the reality of the problem for most companies.

    I fixed about 1.5 millin lines of code written in COBOL and PL1.

    Good job. Your personal experience doesn't change the facts though. Most companies had nothing close to that amount of code to fix if they had any at all and the core operations of most weren't ever at substantial risk. The only real risk to many was that their bank or Microsoft wouldn't deal with the problem adequately. As long as that happened most other problems weren't too serious.

    The company would have been out of business now, if we had not fixed ist software.

    That is the exception that proves the rule. Not a single company I have worked for or consulted to or worked with (which is many) would have been put out of business by Y2K. Most companies exposure to the Y2K problem was minimal. A typical restaurant or a manufacturing company simply were not in substantial danger from the problem. A few companies had serious exposure to the problem and needed substantial mitigation. Most did not.

    Basically every Company whee we fixed the code for would not have survived if we had not (or if we had made majour mistakes).

    Are you familiar with the concept of selection bias? You worked on some of the few companies that actually had major problems. Some unquestionably did and no one should minimize the seriousness of what they dealt with. Most however demonstrably did not have serious problems with Y2K and had minimal to no mitigation required. It wasn't clear at the time how serious Y2K would be but we we have the advantage of hindsight and data about those who did little to deal with the problem. Turns out it just wasn't as bad as we feared for the most part.

    I worked with several myself that did basically nothing in regards to the problem. My primary employer just before and during Y2K was a large manufacturing concern (Fortune 500 at the time) and while they did a systemic review (which I was involved in), there was very little they needed to do and the only potential significant risks to them were things that were entirely out of their control. None of the companies I consulted with in the 5 years before and after Y2K were in any substantial danger either. I think if you were to look around objectively you'd see the same thing in most places.

    1. Re:Exceptions that prove the rule by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 1

      Furthermore the public facts are that there is a ton of evidence that Y2K simply wasn't as big a problem as it was made out to be. There were a few bits that definitely needed some serious fixing but the hype around the problem exceeded the reality of the problem for most companies.

      Nice Monday morning armchair quarterbacking there.

      --
      We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
    2. Re:Exceptions that prove the rule by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have no idea what my background is so you're not really in a position to judge.

      Then please enlighten us as to your background, so we may know.

      Good job. Your personal experience doesn't change the facts though. Most companies had nothing close to that amount of code to fix if they had any at all and the core operations of most weren't ever at substantial risk. The only real risk to many was that their bank or Microsoft wouldn't deal with the problem adequately. As long as that happened most other problems weren't too serious.

      You didn't cite "the facts"--GP cites personal experience. Would be nice to see examples in both cases.

      That is the exception that proves the rule. Not a single company I have worked for or consulted to or worked with (which is many) would have been put out of business by Y2K. Most companies exposure to the Y2K problem was minimal. A typical restaurant or a manufacturing company simply were not in substantial danger from the problem. A few companies had serious exposure to the problem and needed substantial mitigation. Most did not.

      Personal experience of a different nature than GP--good to know.

      Basically every Company whee we fixed the code for would not have survived if we had not (or if we had made majour mistakes).

      Are you familiar with the concept of selection bias? You worked on some of the few companies that actually had major problems. Some unquestionably did and no one should minimize the seriousness of what they dealt with. Most however demonstrably did not have serious problems with Y2K and had minimal to no mitigation required. It wasn't clear at the time how serious Y2K would be but we we have the advantage of hindsight and data about those who did little to deal with the problem. Turns out it just wasn't as bad as we feared for the most part.

      I worked with several myself that did basically nothing in regards to the problem. My primary employer just before and during Y2K was a large manufacturing concern (Fortune 500 at the time) and while they did a systemic review (which I was involved in), there was very little they needed to do and the only potential significant risks to them were things that were entirely out of their control. None of the companies I consulted with in the 5 years before and after Y2K were in any substantial danger either. I think if you were to look around objectively you'd see the same thing in most places.

      I would ask if the selection bias you cited is also relevant to yourself, as your personal experience is prone to the same biases as the GP based on what you have written. It's obvious both of you are very passionate about your experiences, but it is hard to judge facts without specific citations that can be independently researched.

    3. Re:Exceptions that prove the rule by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was CIO at a community college. We had our own homegrown applications in COBOL that had existed for decades before I started there. Nearly 2 million lines of code that were based on dates and would be broken as soon as students started registering for classes in 2000. It took 9 months and 5 programmers to fix our Y2K problems just in those systems. Financial Aid, for example, would not have acknowledge any students needing it.

      Almost every other college I talked to had similar problems. And colleges running ERPs from the likes of Banner and Datatel also had problems to face, both in the companies' ERPS and in their local additions/mods to them.

    4. Re:Exceptions that prove the rule by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      A restaurant is not a company that relies on software or has any problems if the dates are printed wrong.

      So I would say, the selection bias is ony our side.

      When we talk about Y2K Problems we mean companies where the software they run is their business, e.g. in my case a company that did all the accounting and payrolling for its customers.

      As sad as it is if Windows 95 sorts filenames in a directory view wrong: this is not a real Y2K problem.

      None of the companies I consulted with in the 5 years before and after Y2K were in any substantial danger either.
      Which would mean they had no Y2K bug? So, why is it worth mentionning?

      Obviously we only talk about software that actually had bugs.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    5. Re:Exceptions that prove the rule by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh for fucks sake, you are a lying cunt if you are disputing the actual facts of the Y2K bug as specifically laid out by the 100% correct posts disputing your assertions it was basically nothing.

      You never worked on it you liar.

    6. Re:Exceptions that prove the rule by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My company had a nice couple of years replacing embedded systems that we had installed but recently stopped supporting over the previous 15 years.

      These were real time systems that as well as their primary purpose working on a rolling buffer of the last 20 minutes of data, streamed time tagged measurements to a serial port that could either go to a printer or some other data logging system.

      The systems had battery backed up clocks.

      Of all the dozens of systems I tested, none were using the serial port data streams and none had ever replaced the existing batteries, which were now almost universally flat.

      They were carrying out their primary function perfectly well. However all were found to fail the Y2K test as all would reboot to a clock time around 1984, which would then be part of the time tagged output. At least 80% of these systems were then replaced.

      Of course the new systems came with new bugs. Unfortunately one unlucky customer then had a Y2k problem when a recompile to add a trivial feature was made after previously passing Y2K tests, but had been done using a new PC which had not had the appropriate compiler patch installed correctly. It made the front page of the sunday papers as an example of one of the few problems that did occur. No damage was done, nobody died, no company went bust, the software just needed rebooted.

  84. Re: I'm still LOLing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously. I haven't seen much good come out of that region in a long while.

  85. Insightful? Tripe. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Democracy will not work unless the people making the decisions are well informed about the issues.

    Verily.

    This referendum was an unnecessary and unmitigated disaster. Too many people had no real idea of the benefits and costs of the EU.

    Ah, there it is, the good ol' liberal answer of, "Everyone who doesn't believe exactly what I believe is DUMB!"

  86. Dont you diss the coffee! by fireylord · · Score: 1

    Hey, who wants a double caramel latte chocca mocca made by someone who isn't a graduate?
    It'd obviously taste terrible! /s

  87. How do yOU know it was unnecessary? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let me guess: if it hadn't been done, something would have broken, and you'd complain that despite all this money and time and effort, programmers fucked it up.

    Damned if we do, damned if we don't.

    Because you get to choose AFTER the event what you wish to assert.

  88. Re:I'm still LOLing... by sycodon · · Score: 0

    Canada?

    Seriously?

    You do mean that land of sissified, terminally apologetic, insufferably PC individuals that live in the sparsely populated and perpetually frozen wasteland above the US?

    Kidding...I Kid!!...I love Vancouver.

    I have a huge interest in Asian culture.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
  89. What I don't get about it is this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If we got such a bad deal from EU, is that because
    a) we're shit at negotiating
    or
    b) EU has much better negotiators

    ?

    In EITHER case, we're fucked. Either we do a bad job negotiating because (a) is the case, or we have to renegotiate without the help of the better negotiators if (b) is true.

    The ONLY way we're better off out is if we got a bloody fantastic deal in the EU, but that rather scuppers the "argument" made to leave.

  90. We still have bureocrats. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And since each EU regulation had to be written by UK legislators into UK law to apply, where is the list of regulations we'll be removing?

    And if our output isn't specced to EU regulations, they can't be accepted by the EU and this isn't a tarriff or embargo. But if we work it specced to EU regulations, we haven't removed ANY of these ephemeral regulations you're so worried about existing.

  91. Aren't they supposed to be the "Job Creators"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yet here they are killing jobs, and "everyone knows" that this was what they were working for.

    Maybe companies aren't "job creators" at all, and it is all just fluff to get wealthy people working in high management or on executive boards (Like, for example, Farage) preferential terms sold past people under a comforting lie about jobs.

  92. Re:I'm still LOLing... by CajunArson · · Score: 3, Funny

    (With one being batshit crazy, who seems to have conned much of the uneducated portion of the population).

    So you've got Hillary covered. What is your criticism of Trump?

    --
    AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
  93. Only if you don't know how to type... by Archfeld · · Score: 1

    "Of course, in Linux you can also middle-click to paste, much easier than the Windows Control-C, Control-V maneuver. " (correct spelling the word to a US and most of the world centric version is for my benefit).

    It is much easier to cut and paste using the traditional keyboard shortcuts than it is to remove your hands from the KB and position the mouse then return to the keyboard again. Whether you are using *nix or Windows. I can't say for OSX as I've never really been a big user. The use of a mouse is slow and inefficient if you are typing any length of text. That is why the 'tab' functions the way it does.

    --
    errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
    1. Re:Only if you don't know how to type... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > It is much easier to cut and paste using the traditional keyboard shortcuts than it is to remove your hands from the KB and position the mouse then return to the keyboard again.

      Unless you're using Internet Explorer, you should know by now that (even on Windows) most modern browsers (Firefox, Chrome, Opera etc.) allow fluid navigation with much less or no keyboard use. In fact, I don't remove my hands from the keyboard simply because I hold the mouse 90% of the time...

      > The use of a mouse is slow and inefficient if you are typing any length of text.

      Not really: when cutting and pasting (the present example) it's way easier to scroll the page a little upwards, triple-click to select that address and scrolling down back one single middle-click can paste it.

      > That is why the 'tab' functions the way it does.

      Are you referring to the tab key or the tab as shown on the tab-bar? (either way, I don't get it)

    2. Re:Only if you don't know how to type... by Archfeld · · Score: 1

      I guess if the only application you use is a browser you might be correct, but what about the rest of us that use other apps, and type a significant amount of text. Maybe I just us a lot of VI so am used to not always having a mouse for more than repeat commands that I have come to depend on the KB shortcuts. As for the tab key, I am referring to its usage to step forward to the next designated input area, and the reverse usage of shift tab. I am an old school 3270 user that has learned never to expect anything but a flat 3270 or Wyse terminal in an emergency so I plan and use such generally. Not being a programmer in a setup environment I have to prepare for and often use the lowest common denominator CLI for system recovery and router/SAN access.

      --
      errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
    3. Re:Only if you don't know how to type... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for replying. As I typed my previous answer, I even imagined a use of Firefox with one of those add-ons which add Vim-like shortcuts as a possible exception to my reasoning -- but dismissed the possibility as a corner case; indeed, being proficient in vi moves might make a serious argument to abandon the mouse -- specially if one gets used to faster shortcuts to go to the top of the page, to the bottom, left, right, etc. (I'm reminded of a nice vim shortcuts wallpaper which I won't link out of consideration for the author/hosting site).

      Also, using that least denominator approach seems fit in your line of work, can't argue with the pragmatics of such view. Not my case just as a lay user of Firefox and Libreoffice (and occasionally Vim).

  94. Re:I'm still LOLing... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    If the UK voted to leave the EU, there is little chance that it will vote to join the U.S.

    Hey, but at least they wouldn't be taxed without representation!

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  95. Re:I'm still LOLing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    (With one being batshit crazy, who seems to have conned much of the uneducated portion of the population).

    So you've got Hillary covered. What is your criticism of Trump?

    Me and most other Canadians support Trump. Hillary is a witch.

  96. Re: I'm still LOLing... by hey! · · Score: 4, Informative

    Over a thousand years? You really think that Britain in, say, the 13th or 14th C was advanced compared to China, Korea, Japan, the Fatmid Empire, India, or Ghana? You probably didn't even realize Ghana was once a major world power because of the parochialism of history as taught in European schools, but it was the world's largest producer of gold. Ghanian gold in trans-Saharan trade caused inflation in medieval Egypt, and high prices spurred the development of Venetian trade. That brought wealth and knowledge into Italy, making the Renaissance possible. So no Ghana, no European civilization as we know it.

    Until the Enlightenment, Europe was the most backward shit-hole in the world, intellectually, culturally and technologically. Why do you think Columbus and everyone else was so anxious to get to China? Because that's where all the good stuff was; amazing stuff like paper, chimneys, dental fillings,cast iron and a merit-based civil service system. The one thing Europe was advanced in, though was fighting. Europeans were unruly, uncivilized barbarians who fought each other all the time, so naturally they got very good at it.

    If you were sentenced to be sent back by time machine to live in the 1200s, Europe would be low on the list of places you'd want to end up. China probably wins based on the availability of toilet paper alone. Britain was relatively peaceful and advanced for Northern Europe, but it's hard to think of places in Asia or Africa that suffered multiple decades-spanning civil wars that Britain did.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  97. Re:I'm still LOLing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No one in the EU quit. David Cameron resigned due to his failure.

    Look at the DNC hack. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz quit because her position was untenable.

    No one in the EU has resigned over Brexit, Greece, or this migrant/terrorist crisis.

  98. Re: I'm still LOLing... by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

    If the UK is so prosperous, why it is a home of some of the poorest and least developed areas in the EU - worse than Romania or Bulgaria?

    --
    "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
  99. Re: I'm still LOLing... by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

    No decent Canadian would ever write like you do, so I guess that you're an immigrant from the U.S.
    The time is nigh for Canada to build a wall on its borders and make U.S.icans pay for it!

    You're obviously not a Canadian either - your accent is wrong, and you didn't say "eh" even once!

    --
    #DeleteChrome
  100. Re:I'm still LOLing... by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

    >And thanks to global warming, in another century or so it will be a tolerable plaote>

    Yeah, but when your currency is based on the value of beaver pelts, global warming has a downside too...

    --
    #DeleteChrome
  101. Welcom to the real world... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...where the rest of us private sector workers are concerned with our employment status constantly.

  102. Buyers market. Get in now! by sbrown123 · · Score: 2

    My company is actually expanding operations with two British companies we do business with. Much of this is possible by the weakened pound and knowing that their EU membership tax (which was shockingly large we found out) will be lifted. I'm starting to think all this fear mongering in the media is being orchestrated by the big fish so they can have first dibs at the best pieces.

  103. Re:I'm still LOLing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is modded +4 interesting? Really? Civil war? Cultural identity? Oh my ...

  104. Re:For An Article Concerning Scientific Research.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't that karma? The Scottish Executive has an official policy of having "a fresh talent initiative" for decades. Given the choice between a native graduate and a foreign graduate being considered for a post, the foreign graduate would automatically take priority, forcing natives graduates to emigrate. To achieve this goal, they would even drag someone's PhD thesis out for four years or more while blocking them from publishing papers in that field, forcing them to emigrate.

  105. Re: I'm still LOLing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shut up, traitor. Everybody knows that Europe brought civilization to the whole of the world's brutes who could never make it work by themselves, as proven over and over again. Why, even the preamble to the EU Constitution states beyond all doubts that "Europe is the bringer of civilization". Dissent is frowned upon, citizen. Change your tune or there will be consequences.

  106. Now let us sing ye olde Brexit hymn: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of all the money e'er I had,
    I spent it in good company.
    And all the harm I've ever done,
    Alas! it was to none but me.
    And all I've done for want of wit
    To mem'ry now I can't recall
    So fill to me the parting glass
    Good night and joy be with you all!

  107. Re:I'm still LOLing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, we know now from the leaked emails that she would never have gotten the Democratic nomination if it hadn't been rigged in her favor.

    Yeah, how dare they follow the established process that existed and let the person who got the most votes in the primaries as well as the most super-delegates, be the actual nominee. Do you know there weren't even uniform rules for accessing the ballots? In some places, you could pick whichever party you wanted to endorse when you picked up your ballot, in others, you had to have signed up months beforehand! Totally inconsistent!

    They should have let you throw a dart at a board, just like you always wanted.

  108. Re: I'm still LOLing... by Dogtanian · · Score: 1

    If the UK is so prosperous, why it is a home of some of the poorest and least developed areas in the EU - worse than Romania or Bulgaria?

    WTF? I'm an independence-inclined Scot with no patience for the rest of the United Kingdom that's dragging us out of the EU against our will.

    And even I'm going to call BS on this unless you can elaborate on and substantiate your claim.

    --
    "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
  109. Everything bad over the next 2 years will be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    blamed on BREXIT.

    This is Slashdot - surely most people here have dealt with managers, right?? It's just a normal blame-avoidance mechanism they apparently teach when they hand out MBA degreees. There must be a class called "Opportunistic Blame shifting 101"

    Everybody is supposed to forget that the UK existed, and was even the most powerful nation on Earth, long before the EU was even a twinkle in the eye of any eager Eurocrat.

  110. Re: I'm still LOLing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just because someone Googled "what is the EU" does not indicate what they voted nor does it tell you how much they know about it. You can read hundreds of pages and not fully understand it as well as how it affects the UK.

    I know it's witty to pretend any one that supported leaving are dumb racist cunts with worse teeth than a redneck in Alabama. Worse is how both sides try to boil it down to 1 or 2 issues. It's like the abortion and gun issues in America... There is a lot more complexity.

  111. Re: I'm still LOLing... by Darinbob · · Score: 1

    It'd be awful merely to be sentenced to England 100 years ago, it'd be even worse to be in an English colony. If you weren't born to the right parents your advancement options were slim. And 100 years ago the Great War was still in progress, probably pretty sucky to be male back then and stuck in a trench with all your superiors being upperclass twits fighting a pointless war because the major hobby in Europe those days was having wars. That's the whole reason for the EU anyway, an experiment to unite all these close neighbors rather than invading each other.

  112. Re:I'm still LOLing... by Darinbob · · Score: 1

    And it's those eastern Europeans who got the brunt of xenophobic backlash the day after the Brexit vote.

  113. Re: I'm still LOLing... by Mondor · · Score: 1

    I don't want to break your fairy tale, but thousand years ago Britain wasn't a nation and comparing to some others it definitely wasn't "most prosperous, safe, and culturally advanced".

  114. Re:I'm still LOLing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Majority? Don't confuse those that are most vocal as the majority.

  115. Actually, every intelligent person in Britain... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    should be celebrating that all the people in their government and other big institutions who have been slowly sliding downhill into the most-classic form of treason have been outed. "Treason" is NOT some political candidate saying that if a foreign leader has stolen some documents he ought to hand them back (which on Slashdot has recently been portrayed as "treason"). "Treason" has generally been recognized as a citizen taking actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure his nation. That is EXACTLY what the EU has gradually led government officials and many other citizens of the UK to sleepwalk into: they've been helping a foreign government to overthrown the UK government, nibble by nibble, and inch by inch.

    There should be fireworks every year on the anniversary of the BREXIT vote to remember the day the voters stopped the underhanded and dishonest boiling-frog-style sell-out of the UK.

    There is nothing worse in governance than people within a government slowly selling out their own nation to foreign interests and planning to gradually transfer the sovereignty of the people to foreign leaders on foreign soil, all without the explicit consent of the people themselves. It's shocking that the sellout of the UK went so rapidly from the Battle of Britain to the Queen having a passport that makes HER (who as queen is supposed to be the sovereign of the nation) a citizen of that foreign government (and therefore no longer the legitimate monarch). This is the destruction of centuries of UK history and struggles for hard-won freedom in only 70+ years.

    The "remainers" in the UK should simply get it over with and move to the EU; they'll be happier there and the UK would be far better off without all these people who have no concern for their nation, their laws, their courts, their traditions, their fellow citizens, etc and are so willing to sellout anything and everything for the chance to be ruled by Germans and live under constantly changing rules churned out by nameless faceless unaccountable bureaucrats in Brussels.

  116. Re: I'm still LOLing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well played, sir.

  117. This is how you freak out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  118. Re:Buyers market. Get in now! by Fragnet · · Score: 1

    Yes. The company I work for also exports all over the world, much less to the EU, so it's good for us too.

  119. A lot of scientists are relocating by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    I can't tell you how many British scientists are looking for positions in North America or the rest of the EU, but it's pretty large. Some are staying in Scotland, betting they will stay in the EU after Scexit (or Indyref2) happens, some are betting on Northern Ireland for the same reason, but it's a sad state of affairs.

    Decisions have consequences, just like Maggie Thatcher's actions caused a brain drain from Britain for more than a decade.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  120. Re: I'm still LOLing... by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1
    --
    "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
  121. Re: I'm still LOLing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Civil war? In your country?

    I'm in Ireland, only fighting will be for the north and that will not be a civil war.

    Who are the sides fighting in your country? Which is your country?

  122. Re: I'm still LOLing... by Dogtanian · · Score: 2

    That appears to be a relative comparison, and appears to include a weighting for (e.g.) prices.

    That's not to say that such concerns aren't legitimate. For example, housing in the UK is generally expensive, reaching ludicrous and obscene levels in the South East of England and especially London. It means that anyone who isn't on a well-paid job in that area is going to have serious problems finding affordable accommodation. (FWIW, I'm disgusted that the UK economy is so obsessed with ever-increasing house prices and the fact that this is assumed to be a good thing. Not if you're looking for your first bloody house, it isn't.)

    Social exclusion is another area that's very relative; if most people have a higher income and social life revolves around activities requiring that level of income, someone earning less is going to be socially excluded. In fact, that's probably true regardless of the level of absolute income- it's the amount of inequality that's more likely to be important there.

    But in absolute financial terms, it's utterly misleading to compare any region or country within the United Kingdom to Romania or Bulgaria.

    --
    "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
  123. Re: I'm still LOLing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does what you are saying mean it is no longer white peoples fault the world sucks? Or is this a new way of phrasing the same old tired refrain?

  124. "The Establishment" is "Freaking Out" Over Brexit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The Establishment" is "Freaking Out" Over Brexit.

    There, fixed the title.

    They're using the media to promote that freak out.

  125. Re: I'm still LOLing... by hey! · · Score: 1

    Does what you are saying mean it is no longer white peoples fault the world sucks? Or is this a new way of phrasing the same old tired refrain?

    Oh, genetic testing has pretty much shown the whole idea of a "white person" is wrong. The whole notion of inbreeding groups that descend, largely pristine, from primordial times is a fairy tale. So it can't be white peoples' fault, any more than it can be the fault of the fairies. There's no such thing.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  126. Re: I'm still LOLing... by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

    Why? GDP per capita of Wales in 2014 was about 17k GBP (source: Wikipedia). That is comparable to Greece or Slovenia in absolute numbers. Should be embarrassing for a rich and prosperous country. Even the GDP per capita of North Rhine - Westphalia, currently the economically weakest German federal state, is almost twice as high.

    --
    "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
  127. Re: I'm still LOLing... by Dogtanian · · Score: 1

    That is comparable to Greece or Slovenia in absolute numbers.

    Who mentioned anything about Greece or Slovenia? We were discussing your comparison of the United Kingdom with Romania and Bulgaria.

    --
    "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
  128. Re:For An Article Concerning Scientific Research.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This rather shoddy article contains a lot of supposition, suggestion and conjecture, but it has been very selective in it's reporting of "facts".
    It's a newspaper article, not a blog. It's not in the business of objectively reporting facts.

  129. Re: I'm still LOLing... by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

    Which was absolutely valid. In relative numbers - GDP to purchasing power - Wales is indeed on the level of Romania and Bulgaria. In absolute numbers it is comparable to Greece and Slovenia - both countries are very poor. No matter how you take it, it is unworthy of "the 6th largest economy in the world" and only shows that a large part of that economy is the city of London casino.

    --
    "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
  130. Re:I'm still LOLing... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

    We know no such thing. You're speculating on the outcome of a hypothetical situation.

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  131. don't worry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When president trump takes over science will be illegal, so the uk will be ahead of us at least.

  132. Speaking of Upperclass Twits by tmjva · · Score: 1

    Every time I think of British scientists I think of the Monty Python sketch of Upperclass Twit of the Year.

    --
    Tracy Johnson
    Old fashioned text games hosted below:
    http://empire.openmpe.com/
    BT
  133. Re: I'm still LOLing... by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

    I'm working on my alternative citizenship, so that I can take myself out of the racist shithole that is Britain (country of my birth) and move to a more amenable European country (and taking my tax revenue with me). Speaking another language for breakfast. So fucking what?

    --
    Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  134. The reason behind the push for Brexit revealed by Gallomimia · · Score: 1

    A trend against science and research and education has been seen in the US. Why not also in the EU and UK?

    --
    Sadly, a Libertarian cannot force his views on another, and freedom cannot spread as does the cancer known as religion.
  135. Brexit freak out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We've long known that most Scientist follow the money and the results they return more often than not follow the opinions of those who write the checks. I wonder what they'll do now that they are no longer bought and paid for? I'm sure they'll find a new "John" before long.

  136. Well as far as Ford goes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Closing plants is nothing new, and certainly not because of brexit. It's because american manufacturers insist on producing shit the rest of the world don't want. Ford may have revolutionised the process of making cars, but that's no excuse for making shit.

  137. Re: I'm still LOLing... by HuguesT · · Score: 1

    What makes you think post-brexit UK will opt out of the open border policy?

  138. Re: But they pay more to the EU than they get back by HuguesT · · Score: 1

    Mod up, informative.