EU Referendum Megathread (Brexit)

[Lucy]

I was reading today that the latest polls indicating a leave vote, however it has swapped and changed so many times. I have also recently registered to vote from overseas as well, most of my UK friends here didn't realise they could vote and almost all of them want to vote leave. There is so much rubbish being spread that there has been barely any clear cut information as to the benefits and negatives of it all, but oh well.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Having spent the last week with some of Britain's best academics in various fields of science, it seems fairly conclusive that they firmly believe we would lose out (in science funding) if we leave the EU. Now, who should I listen to? A scaremongering kipper, or people highly educated in their field? Think I'll listen to them.

Anecdotal evidence doesn't fly. I spend time with a lot of working class people who are all saying they're going to vote Leave, does that therefore automatically mean a Leave vote would be beneficial for people on lower incomes? No of course not. And don't place your faith in experts as it was experts who roundly told the country only a decade ago that not joining the Euro would damage our economy, our place in the world and the rest.

You say they firmly "believe" they would lose out on funding, but belief isn't an academic quality. Where's their evidence? Did you not ask?

I should note, some of them were still anti-EU; but the fact remains they STILL accepted the high chance of losing out in terms of science funding if we lose.

Again did you ask them to explain how exactly they came to this conclusion when....

a) the UK pays more into the EU than it gets out therefore would have a surplus to spend on leaving
b) non-EU Norway fully participates in joint-European scientific research and programmes

A bit of critical thinking wouldn't go amiss.

My original post was merely highlighting that your image was wrong. Simple. I never intended to get into the debate of whether they should make decisions on our behalf; simply that what you posted was inaccurate. And I am right.

That is what you are de facto arguing. You're arguing that because a government *could* (not that it would) reduce science funding therefore you wish to vote Remain to place a roadblock in the way of an elected government potentially doing so. That's very undemocratic my friend.

[The Don]

And don't place your faith in experts as it was experts who roundly told the country only a decade ago that not joining the Euro would damage our economy, our place in the world and the rest.

Scientists also used to think the sun orbited the earth, according to Dan logic anything scientists say now is wrong. Different people being wrong in the past on different matters is not an argument in itself. Evidence to the contrary of what they say is a valid argument, simply spouting "well dey there wus wrong in the past so they is wrong now!!" is moronic.

Thankfully they have good reason for their assumptions:

A case study of Switzerland as a model for UK science outside the EU

Fortunately, this discussion is not purely hypothetical, but rather based largely on the precedent of Switzerland’s relationship with the EU science programme. Given Switzerland’s high competence in science, geographical location in Europe, non-EU status and political difficulties with issues of EU immigration – Switzerland is a helpful model for the UK’s re-negotiation of science programme membership following a Brexit:

Synopsis of the Swiss-EU science story
1. Switzerland is not a member of the EU but since 1992 has obtained full access to Framework Programmes, as part of agreements that also guarantee free movement of persons, contributing to the FP budget alongside other EU members.
2. In 2014, a popular vote to limit mass migration was passed by a margin of 50.3 to 49.7%
3. The Swiss government was then unable to commit to ratification of a free movement accord with Croatia.
4. Switzerland was suspended from access to Horizon 2020.
5. The Swiss government was forced to replicate at national level a temporary programme to replace immediate access to the ERC programme and subsequently negotiated limited access to H2020, with much reduced access to programmes, exclusion from the new SME Instrument and loss of ability to coordinate collaborative research within H2020. This is reliant on continued freedom of movement. Switzerland also funds Swiss participants in EU collaborative programmes directly at national level, requiring parallel domestic administration and an agreement to accept all funding decisions made in Brussels, effectively losing control of its national science budget.
6. The Swiss were also not included on Erasmus+. They chose to ensure continuation of the scheme by paying nationally both for students leaving and for those coming in (i.e. paying double what they would as a member of the international programme).
7. Negotiated access to H2020 will end in 2016, when Switzerland must either ratify the Croatia treaty or lose access to H2020 plus risk its bilateral trade agreements with the EU.
8. Switzerland must contribute to H2020 based on GDP and population and has no role in developing funding topics.

This case study of Switzerland represents an instructive set of circumstances for the UK with regard to Horizon 2020 access post-Brexit. Switzerland’s current participation is dependent on free movement. Should the UK leave the EU and restrict freedom of movement, it will have no access to Horizon 2020 beyond third country status (Afghanistan, Argentina etc.). However, as detailed further on, the sheer size of the UK causes problems for re-joining the EU programme after rejecting the EU.

Source: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexitvote/20...er-an-eu-exit/

[lemons]

hey is the itv thing from last night worth watching any drama or shocking moments such as crazy audience members

[-:Undertaker:-]

Hmmm I don't remember talking about Switzerland in relation to science funding. I spoke about non-EU Norway, which participates fully.

hey is the itv thing from last night worth watching any drama or shocking moments such as crazy audience members

I haven't watched but there wasn't much of a buzz from it.

Only interesting part I found on Twitter were these audience reaction graphs, mirroring the polling which is showing undecideds/swing now moving towards Leave. That's surprised me given in referendums and even elections swing voters *tend* to back the status quo option rather than a change.

[AgnesIO]

Anecdotal evidence doesn't fly. I spend time with a lot of working class people who are all saying they're going to vote Leave, does that therefore automatically mean a Leave vote would be beneficial for people on lower incomes? No of course not. And don't place your faith in experts as it was experts who roundly told the country only a decade ago that not joining the Euro would damage our economy, our place in the world and the rest.

You say they firmly "believe" they would lose out on funding, but belief isn't an academic quality. Where's their evidence? Did you not ask?



Again did you ask them to explain how exactly they came to this conclusion when....

a) the UK pays more into the EU than it gets out therefore would have a surplus to spend on leaving
b) non-EU Norway fully participates in joint-European scientific research and programmes

A bit of critical thinking wouldn't go amiss.



That is what you are de facto arguing. You're arguing that because a government *could* (not that it would) reduce science funding therefore you wish to vote Remain to place a roadblock in the way of an elected government potentially doing so. That's very undemocratic my friend.

Not bothering to reply to most of this, as you've just come back to my original point. This surplus that you keep banging on about cannot lead to funding absolutely everything in Britain. It isn't that much. It never was that much. It never will be that much.

Sure it might help the NHS, won't go much further than that.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Not bothering to reply to most of this, as you've just come back to my original point. This surplus that you keep banging on about cannot lead to funding absolutely everything in Britain. It isn't that much. It never was that much. It never will be that much.

Sure it might help the NHS, won't go much further than that.

Who said it would fund everything? Certainly not me. No budget that currently receives so-called "EU money" would need to be cut however. Infact, if the extra were divided up each budget would receive a pretty big boost.

If you hand £350 to somebody and they give you £200 back but spend/decide how you can spend the extra £150 that'd be a rotten deal.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Just watched the two-hour ITV Debate.

Leave team was Boris Johnson (Conservative), Gisela Stuart (Labour) & Andrea Leadsom (Conservative).

Remain team was Nicola Sturgeon (SNP), Angela Eagle (Labour) & Amber Rudd (Conservative).

Leavers again with this debate performing better with undecided voters and coming out top in the performance polling.

Also today I got some placards delivered and got inventive (my DT skills came in handy finally) with a plank of wood I had and a mini-Union flag.



And good old Dennis Skinner (Labour MP) has come out today in support of Leave along with John Mann MP (Labour) just now.

Veteran Labour MP Dennis Skinner reveals he will be voting to leave the EU in the Morning Star #EUref pic.twitter.com/KdMzYb9mYo

— Sophy Ridge (@SophyRidgeSky) June 9, 2016

[lemons]

I must say that the leave campaign broadcast I saw on ITV today (focussed on the NHS) was the biggest load of crap I've ever seen... even if I supported the leave campaign I'd be embarrassed by it!

the whole ref is so boring now but I have learnt lots about the EU in the past few months!

[Lucy]

I find it amusing that Sturgeon and the SNP are pushing for a remain campaign, they didn't even want to be part of the UK.