[alancalverd]

Yes, to a considerable extent that is true, not only because it has been government policy for years (Home Office "hostile environment")

And nobody believes politicians, whatever they say.

make up your mind.

It's wise not to trust what they say, but you can't ignore what they do.

Kicking out Windrush descendants and "go home" placards on vans are and were a fact. Problem is that the hostile environment only applied to those to whom the UK owed a debt of gratitude or who had settled and worked here and applied for a British passport, not to white Europeans given the right to be here without a reason.

[Bored chemist]

So Brexit is a science experiment then? Strange, I thought it was the art of political game playing. Maybe I have stumbled onto a political science forum then. Who knew?

"political science" is pretty close to being a contradiction in terms.


Brexit is a way for very rich people to get richer at the expense of a lot of other people.
WTF has that got to do with science?

[Bored chemist]

white Europeans given the right to be here without a reason.

How did you come to the conclusion that all Europeans are white?
Anyway the reason is simple.
quid pro quo.

Was there some reason you didn't understand that?

[Bored chemist]

Problem is that the hostile environment only applied to those to whom the UK owed a debt of gratitude or who had settled and worked here and applied for a British passport, not to white Europeans given the right to be here without a reason.

Just plain  "No".
Are you aware that it applied - in large measure- to recent immigrants who were in fact refugees?
Our obligation to accept refugees is utterly independent of our membership of the EU.
It arises from rules  made by the UN.
So it's irrational to think that Brexit will address this purported issue.

[alancalverd]

Pretty much my point. HM Govt adopted a hostile attitude to refugees with a genuine need to be here, and the British-born children of invited immigrants from the Commonwealth, but cannot refuse entry to any scrounging scum or convicted murderer with an EU passport. Brexit will at least give us the right to choose immigrants on merit and issue limited visas for seasonal workers.

The refugee question is itself interesting.  UN rules require refugees to be accommodated in the first safe country they reach. Hence a reasonably proud record  of the UK receiving refugees from various European wars pogroms and revolutions. But recent refugees have had to cross the EU to get to the UK. If no part of continental Europe is a safe country for refugees, should we remain politically associated with it?

Apropos your earlier question, about 95% of EU citizens call themselves white. And I didn't express or imply any figure.   

[jeffreyH]

So Brexit is a science experiment then? Strange, I thought it was the art of political game playing. Maybe I have stumbled onto a political science forum then. Who knew?

"political science" is pretty close to being a contradiction in terms.


Brexit is a way for very rich people to get richer at the expense of a lot of other people.
WTF has that got to do with science?

You said you wanted to discuss how important facts were because this is a science forum. Except all you were talking about was Brexit. Not science. I just corrected you. That's all. So don't start deflecting. That is a tactic used by those in power who want to cover their sins.

[alancalverd]

Brexit is a way for very rich people to get richer at the expense of a lot of other people.

But a majority of the UK electorate think that is what the EU is for. And they seem to be right. But who cares about facts?

[Bored chemist]

But a majority of the UK electorate think that is what the EU is for. And they seem to be right. But who cares about facts?

"But a majority of the UK electorate think that is what the EU is for."
Says who?
Also
"But a majority of the UK electorate think that is what the EU is for."
 "And they seem to be right."

 "But who cares about facts?"
Well, not someone whose whole post is made up of unevinced assertions and suppositions...

[Bored chemist]

cannot refuse entry to any scrounging scum or convicted murderer with an EU passport.

Yes they can. and they always could.
That's why "taking back control of the borders" is a myth.
We opted out of Schengen.

And, if we want to exclude various undesirables, the first thing we need to do is recognise them.
To do that we need to cooperate with those on the other side of the border.
Brexit makes that a lot harder.

Here is a summary of the myths about it.
https://ukandeu.ac.uk/myth-busting-free-movement/


Do you accept that the UK always could exclude anyone from the EU whom it chose- it just didn't usually bother?

[Bored chemist]

Apropos your earlier question, about 95% of EU citizens call themselves white. And I didn't express or imply any figure.   

If you say it's not about race, why bring colour into it?

[alancalverd]

We opted out of Schengen.

which gives "no passport" travel for everyone within continental Europe. But we did not opt out of free movement for EU passport holders.

Anyhow, the question of the moment is the impact of Brexit on science.

In the short term, negligible. It would be absurd to curtail any ongoing EU-supported research contracts which were presumably awarded on cost or merit, since any change would increase cost or reduce merit.

Medium term, academic scroungers will have to plead their case in a world market, and commercially funded research will be open to wider participation and recruitment on merit rather than nationality. The political element of EU funding (every project must include personnel from at least two member states, regardless of merit) won't feature. 100% of taxpayer's money currently devoted to supporting EU science projects will now be available for spending in the UK, instead of the current 40 - 60% return, so the central funds available for research will increase. But don't expect any increase in actual support - governments have more politically important calls on your money!

Long term, a return to world markets and recruitment, with science policy directed by UK government and industry, will be a Good Thing, but I expect there will be some shrinkage in the mid-term.

[Bored chemist]

which gives "no passport" travel for everyone within continental Europe. But we did not opt out of free movement for EU passport holders.

The point is that we still make choices.

In the short term, negligible. It would be absurd to curtail any ongoing EU-supported research contracts which were presumably awarded on cost or merit, since any change would increase cost or reduce merit.

Essentially everybody involved says you are wrong.
the thing is that "merit"  and "cost" are not fixed.
They both depend on the availability of cooperation.
I work in science and we are no longer allowed to attend (some) EU meetings.
That means we are excluded from the processes of driving scientific research.
It is absurd to suggest that this will not have a negative impact on UK science and thus on the UK generally.

Medium term, academic scroungers

Name calling really doesn't help.
I presume you recognise that doing it undermines your case but you also know that your case is so bad it doesn't have much to lose.

Long term, a return to world markets and recruitment, with science policy directed by UK government and industry, will be a Good Thing,

In the long term, we are all dead.
So it's a stupid thing to prioritise absolutely over the present.

commercially funded research will be open to wider participation and recruitment on merit rather than nationality.

No
It will be substantially excluded from  the EU which is one of the worlds biggest economies and a power house of scientific research. That's the point of the EU; it's a cartel.
They don't let the non members in.
We will be demoting ourselves to a 3rd party state.
That will not help.
(and that's before you consider the impact of the exchange of ideas that arises from movement of people)

100% of taxpayer's money currently devoted to supporting EU science projects will now be available for spending in the UK, i

Yes, and zero percent of the EU's money will be available for them.

The UK is the second biggest recipient of EU  research funding (6.6 £B per year) (Germany gets more).
That's roughly half as much as the UK govt spends.( £12.2 billion in 2017) from
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governmentpublicsectorandtaxes/researchanddevelopmentexpenditure/bulletins/ukgovernmentexpenditureonscienceengineeringandtechnology/2017
So you are talking about removing a third of the total money.
Even if you were right about the made up "40 - 60% return" it wouldn't cover the loss.
And you say " But don't expect any increase in actual support - governments have more politically important calls on your money! ", so it's not going to be replaced by the UK govt.

You are kissing goodbye to what could be described on the side of a bus as "£170 million per week".
And you are saying it won't have an effect.

As I said, Essentially everybody involved says you are wrong.
The people involved are scientists- we are good at evidence based decision making.

[pensador (OP)]

It seems there might be money to be made from a no deal Brexit, if you are unscrupulous.
https://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2019/07/11/boris-brexit-and-the-hedge-funds-part-1/

After she became Prime Minister, Theresa ‘Brexit means Brexit’ May spent a long time with other EU national leaders working out an agreed Brexit plan. But when this huge Withdrawal Agreement finally came out, some of the most prominent Brexiteers were deeply unhappy with it. Because at the back of the document there was a commitment by the British Government to retain the EU’s new anti-tax avoidance laws.

Assuming that Coco Boris Johnson might not be as stupid as he comes over and is hell bent on a no deal Brexit for non scrupulous reasons. How can people without hedge funds make some cash out of the disaster or avoid losing any more.

Is it good time to liquidate all UK assets, and reinvest after a no deal takes place ?

Edit Don't ever post a document you are looking at with google docs through your email it leaves you logged in. File deleted!

[Bored chemist]

How can people without hedge funds make some cash out of the disaster or avoid losing any more.

Buy gold.

[alancalverd]

I work in science and we are no longer allowed to attend (some) EU meetings.

Are you insinuating that EU science is subservient to politics? The UK hasn't left the EU yet, and on current showing is unlikely to do so on anything that might be described as genuine separation terms. So your scientific contribution is being rejected on the grounds of what might happen politically and economically at some unspecified date in the future. Funny attitude: footballers continue to play for their team until their contract actually expires.

[Bored chemist]

I am stating the obvious.
Science needs cooperation.

So your scientific contribution is being rejected on the grounds of what might happen politically and economically at some unspecified date in the future

No
The brexit-mad government has banned us from making a contribution.
I'd not like to rule out the idea that they are just undermining the public sector as usual.

It is certainly a funny attitude.
So is sacking your own MPs and destroying your majority.
So is adopting a policy which is so bad that you dare not tell the public about how it will pan out.
So is battling to bring about a change that the majority no longer want.

But that's Brexit for you.

[syhprum]

How do you see the future of the word "Brexit" in 10 years time will it have disappeared from contemporary dictionaries ?
we can but hope ! 

[Bored chemist]

Well, the Swiss sort of did the experiment, so we know what happens.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/sep/06/switzerland-scientific-exile-no-deal-brexit-britain-eu-immigration?fbclid=IwAR0dna_V2y1TSsB3BAhinqw4vGy0GqecIsQKqIWRWfd1aFV3Nv21nQu1T_M