EU Referendum
6 watchers
Dec 2015
2:50pm, 10 Dec 2015
8,290 posts
|
Chrisull
Out, because of the behaviour to Greece, and anti-democratic things like TTIP.
|
Dec 2015
2:50pm, 10 Dec 2015
5,466 posts
|
Too Much Water
Out - If we wanted to be ruled by a crazed German tyrant we would have let Hitler invade in 1940!
|
Dec 2015
2:57pm, 10 Dec 2015
7,400 posts
|
rf_fozzy
In. For many of the same reasons as DeeGee. But an extra enormous one: The amount of funding the UK science gets from the EU is staggering. If we left, UK science and research would be decimated. And no, that's not an overreaction. In the past 5/6 years, central govt funded science, although nominally "ring-fenced" has suffered because in real terms inflation has eaten a huge hole in the UK Science budget - and of course in this age of politically driven madness that is "Austerity" (i.e. Osbornomics - fuck the less well off and public services), it's getting worse year on year. In terms of our "domestic" science output, we're ok at the moment, but already lag behind our European and some of our other international "competitors" (including the US). But as soon as you start to include EU funded projects, we come out massively better off - our work is amongst the best and most widely cited in the world. We also get much, much more per capita in funding (and in absolute terms) from the EU science budget than Germany or France. And if you think we could negotiate a deal to stay in for EU funding, yes we probably could, but I can guarantee that we wouldn't get half as much, and the difficulty and chance of getting that funding would increase exponentially. There's a clear example for this: Switzerland. You can include Switzerland on EU grants, but there are extra justifications and hurdles to clear. There are also limits on what costs (inc salaries) you can claim. Basically it just makes the whole thing harder - I know several grants where people have removed Swiss collaborators because it reduces the chance of getting the grant. The same thing would happen with UK funding. Why is UK Science important and why should we fund it? You shouldn't need that question answering really. There are many important discoveries that would not have been discovered without public funding. Private funding would be inadequate and although some areas would be ok, you need the basic science and wider research to cover things that are of extremely high value, but would be funded otherwise. If you want an example: try Game Theory. On top of this, for those who get excited by seeing GDP rise (we must all pray to the great god of GDP these days...) - there's excellent evidence that investment in Science and R&D returns far more to the economy than is put into it. |
|
Dec 2015
2:58pm, 10 Dec 2015
8,291 posts
|
Chrisull
fozzy - haven't you read this, on EU and climate change being incompatible  : independent.co.uk
|
|
Dec 2015
2:58pm, 10 Dec 2015
7,401 posts
|
rf_fozzy
Chris - have a read of this: newstatesman.com
|
|
Dec 2015
3:00pm, 10 Dec 2015
8,293 posts
|
Chrisull
Lol there is no consensus other than TTIP is a disaster.
|
|
Dec 2015
3:04pm, 10 Dec 2015
7,402 posts
|
rf_fozzy
Yes. TTIP is worrysome and bad. We already know that the "Free Market" is a myth and that all moves in that direction are just corporate power grabs, but I have two points regarding the TTIP. 1. It isn't yet implemented or Law, and there is a strong protest movement, including amongst MEPs to have at least safeguards put in, or better get the whole thing scrapped. The Tories are the only UK party in favour of the bloody thing (which says everything you need to know to get it scrapped really). 2. Even if we exit, we'll still be subject to some of the same standards if we want to carry on trading with our biggest trading bloc, i.e. the EU. Thus exiting the EU on those grounds would be meaningless. Even if not, there is a lot of evidence that Tory Eurosceptics want us to leave the EU on the grounds that we can thus weaken our own legislation on environmental and employment laws. We see that by the arguing about the EUHCR, despite that being nothing to do with the EU. |
|
Dec 2015
3:06pm, 10 Dec 2015
7,403 posts
|
rf_fozzy
Sorry ECHR, not EUHCR. Getting my acroynms mixed up.
|
|
Dec 2015
3:11pm, 10 Dec 2015
8,294 posts
|
Chrisull
Monbiot outlines some more reasons of my ambiguity to: monbiot.com Subsidies to French farmers, the watering down of their directives for environmental protection.... etc The Calmac fiasco - where a nationalised service is forced to put out to tender (ie privatised), against muppets like Serco: bbc.co.uk The attitudes of the EU commissioners: independent.co.uk Plus I think if we do exit the EU and it isn't great, it will lance the UKIP boil for once and all - like we're out of the EU and it's even shitter than before, explain that one Farage. I think the Tories will implode because of lot of their business supporters rely on it. I don't think it would be business as usual for them. |
|
Dec 2015
3:21pm, 10 Dec 2015
7,404 posts
|
rf_fozzy
With regards to Climate Change/Global Warming, at least the EU message has largely been a consistent one - we must cut net CO2 emissions to a *minimum* of 20% of 1990 emissions by 2050 (I actually think we need to be net negative by then), and has been one of the key driving forces behind COP21 and getting the cuts we've seen so far. There is cause for optimism now anyway. 2014 saw the smallest rise in CO2 emissions ever outside a global recession. 2015 will see the first decrease ever outside of recession. Yes it will be small (~-0.5%), but it is there. The "Oil"Tanker has reached mid-turn and it will soon start to accelerate in a new direction There's optimism going forward - Solar PV and Onshore wind are now the cheapest form of new power (unsubsidised) of all forms (except energy efficiency) and as such are now becoming the go-to for the majority of countries. Globally, 70% of new power generation in 2015 has been renewable (not inc Nuclear in that). Batteries are plummeting in cost for both EVs and Storage, and there will be a cost competitive EV with a 250mi range available by 2017 (Tesla Mod 3). By 2020, there will be EVs at the same price as most new ICE models - fleet cars will be rapidly switching. Part of the reason Stephen Harper got booted out in Canada was his climate denier attitude, similarly Tony Abbott got booted out in Australia. Denier groups like GWPF or Heartland are now largely irrelevances (when they lobbied the Pope and 8 people turned up, it was pretty funny) - no matter how much cash they get from the Koch brothers and ExxonMobil or BP or Donald Trump. There will still be some inconsistencies as politicians (particularly Conservative and conservative ones), hence some aspects of TTIP and others, but these will soon (hopefully) be irrelevancies. There's a lot of work to be done and a lot of damage has already been done. There are still solutions to be found (i.e. flying - although a lot of us are hoping on Hyperloop) and we still need a way to pull some of the CO2 we've put into the atmosphere back out fairly quickly. But we're starting to make progress now - first time ever I'm happy to say there are positive signs - are they too late? Maybe. Jury out on that one. |
Related Threads
-
Politics
Jan 2025
-
EU Referendum - In or Out? Vote here
Aug 2018
-
March to Parliament Against Brexit - Sat 2nd July
Jun 2016
-
Ads on Fetch - anyone else getting Leave and Remain?!
Feb 2017
-
Economics
Jan 2025
-
The Environment Thread :-)
Jan 2025
-
Fantasy General Election
Jul 2024
-
Vote watch - did you vote today?
Jul 2024
-
Miners strike 1984
Feb 2024
-
Boris Love
Oct 2023
