EU Brexit thread

[Zelandakh]

However, on Gove, what I've heard before seems well encapsulated in this piece from the Grauniad.

That is a clever site - it tells me my computer is offline.

[StevenG]

But all I've heard about Ms. May is that Thatcher would have thought her extreme, and that is the woman that needs a guard on her grave to stop people from "paying their respects".

I don't think that is at all true. This piece from the Guardian seemed reasonably accurate:-

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/11/theresa-may-the-vicars-daughter-poised-to-pull-the-tories-and-the-country-from-the-abyss

[mycroft]

Thanks for that. We can hope.

[The_Badger]

My own take on Brexit (in a slightly comical way) is as follows:

 

We are a somewhat elderly team of four. We have tried various conventions, tweaked our system, asked experts, analysed results, conferred and discussed, but we've never quite got it together as a team. The winning formula was never quite there. We are still at loggerheads with our teammates and partners now and again, and we never qualified for anything of any note.

 

Then one of the team decided that's enough's enough. They are going to leave. There are other options available: go it alone, maybe even give up bridge, or find other teams, move on from the status quo.

 

"No, that can't be right," say the other members of the team, "we must persevere because we have played bridge as a team for so long, that one day we will eventually win."

 

"If we can't win after 43 years together" says the leaver, "then we will never win."

 

The other teammates look at him anxiously, trying to gauge his determination, but he still leaves reluctantly.

 

"Damn" says one, "he was the best player in the team, and without him we will definitely never win!"

 

Another pipes up, "I blame all the rules and regulations, those tournament directors made his life so difficult!"

 

The third member remaining ponders this and says "Even I agree that maybe we should have adopted European-style 5 card majors along the way instead of playing British 4 card major Acol for all these years"

 

:) :) :)

[Zelandakh]

My own take on Brexit (in a slightly comical way) is as follows:

We are a somewhat elderly team of four. We have kept our system up to date but each year fall a little further back as age catches up with us.

 

Then one of the team, let's call him Phil, decides that enough is enough."We were much more successful 50 years ago, we should go back to using those methods," he says. The other three point out the advances made in the intervening years but Phil is adamant: "These are all conventions made by foreigners," he rants, "they are obviously not as good as traditional English Acol!"

 

"Damn," says one of the remaining players one day. "He was such a nice fellow. Now his system is a disaster and he might soon sink into the bottom group of players."

"That is nothing," says his partner, "the real problem is that he is now abusive towards half of the club members and has raised a motion to have them removed for not being English enough. Not to mention bringing in new system regulations to force everyone to play Acol without any conventions. If things continue like this, noone in the area is going to want to have anything to do with us."

"You are right. Perhaps we should consider switching to the Purple Flower bridge club instead."

[mike777]

:)

 

Very confusing last two posts. Were you guys and gals winning or losing before Brexit? Are you winning or losing today?

Do you want to be more English or less English and say more Scottish, Irish or Canadian?

You say you are elderly; do you want to get older or say younger with for example all sorts of young, hungry, eager immigrants from around the globe who are having many more babies than you did?

 

Good luck Ms May!

[onoway]

I don't think that xenophobia is the big cause of all this.

 

What I observed in the past 30 years is a decline in respect for authority, politics and facts.

 

There is no respect for politicians: "They just sit there to get a good salary."

There is no respect for scientists: "They only know how things are in theory, they are so naive."

There is no respect for facts: "The facts may say [fill in whatever, e.g. crime rates are declining] but we know it's not true, since my neighbor's cousin..."

 

People who do want to make decisions based on knowledge (seems like the only sane way to make (non-panic) decisions to me) are framed as "elite".

 

Obviously, I don't know any big politicians in person. But when I watch the (Dutch) politicians on TV, I do not get the impression that they are all just sitting there to get a good salary. The vast majority, particularly those from the "Old Political Parties", are sincerely trying to make the country better. They just have different ideas about what is better and how to get there. That makes things complicated, but that is what politics is all about.

 

The fact that sincere politics is too complicated for many in society has been masterfully used by some "New" politicians. They have translated the people's "I don't understand what politicians are doing" into "If I don't know what they are doing, what they are doing is probably in their own interest." You hear phrases like: "He probably already has a job on a Board of Directors/Trustees/Governors/somewhere in Brussels."

 

Each time a politician leaves and is successful in a new career, this is reinforced. And if he is not successful (and unemployed) then he is profiting from a very nice amount of money from the government (/tax payer/ us all) without doing anything for it! You see, they are all profiteers!

 

Of course, somebody needs to stop this nonsense. But who?

It should be the politicians' job, but they are caught in a Morton's fork coup: If they expose the nonsense, then the populist response is: "You see what he is saying. He is clearly part of the system!" And if they don't expose the nonsense, it slowly "becomes the truth".

How about the press? Get real, who listens to these elitist guys when the truth is out on the internet?

 

The sad conclusion about modern politics is: "Nonsense rules, facts are irrelevant." The Brexit referendum is only an example of this, but it is going on in the entire Western world.

 

Rik

The problem is that many if not most politicians (at least in North America,it may be different in Europe), DO favor multinational corporations over the people they are supposed to represent. A fine example is the DARK act, which with enormous pressure from the public, got defeated, and yet here it is again this week, slightly modified so that some of the information will be on labels but in such tiny print and in such a complicated manner that it is virtually NOT there for most people. This is clearly a sop to the chem-ag people, as the vast majority of people want GMO labelling and the politicians KNOW that but are ignoring it as best they can. This is not any sort of meaningful representation for, of and by the people.

 

Medical researchers and doctors called on the FDA to upgrade the food pyramid, which is not only extremely outdated according to the science of at least the last dozen years but also it seems, based on carefully selected data in the first place. In response the politicians have watered down their recommendations to miniscule changes with no excuse other than putting out the more accurate data would interfere with the profits of multinationals. What is there to respect?

 

In the US, politicians move in and out of the business arena, eg, ex Monsanto employees control the FDA and it was an ex Monsanto lawyer on the Supreme Court who drove the decision to allow patenting of genetic material. A Monsanto lawyer has been suggested as a possible VP for Clinton. There may be separation of church and state but there is decidedly no separation of multinational corporations and state and this is leading to a lot of very bad laws which are working directly against the interests of the people in favor of the interests of the multinationals. When San Salvador banned glyphosate because of the clear connection between it and an epidemic of farmer's deaths, Obama threatened to withdraw foreign aid unless they reversed the ban, it was only after it was made public by Salvador and there was a fuss about it did he retract..and then only for Salvador, not for three other countries also trying to ban it for the same reason.

 

Scientists have unfortunately now got a relatively well earned reputation as a group as being for sale and much of the supposed "research" supports that reputation. This is their own fault as a group for not policing their peers and calling them to account for lousy if not actually false reporting of studies and their results.

 

Scientists who have been libelled and harassed, their reputations slandered and their jobs jeapordized by special interest groups should not have to go to a court of law to defend themselves if the scientific community was doing an adequate job to ensure that the "science" that's put out there actually IS science. Right now, the first question which has to be asked, is "who is paying for this study?" as it seems as though you can almost predict the results if you know that. That can hardly be science, that's simply justification and as such is highly suspect, and it's no wonder people don't trust scientists anymore. Prescription drugs which "cure" symptoms but kill as a side effect are a prime example, properly prescribed medications taken according to instructions are said to be among the leading causes of death in the US now, even by the AMA. How can that be if the studies are properly done and reported as to risk analysis?

 

Too many politicians and scientists, (without question there are exceptions, possibly many more than the duds, but the point remains) have discarded ethical behaviour in the pursuit of personal financial gain. And their peers are NOT holding them responsible, so by passivity are to a degree complicit. Life is complicated now and people generally don't have the time to track down and investigate everything for themselves,if they even know how, or they have no way to determine what actually are "the facts". So they choose who to believe - if anyone- and otherwise don't trust anyone or anything. This is a very very sad state of affairs and entirely of the politicians and scientists own making. Respect has to be earned and clearly large numbers of these groups clearly hold respect as very small potatoes indeed in the face of what they have to gain if they don't care about it.

 

I tend to think that's part of Trump's appeal, he is a selfcentred racist misogynist con man, but he is clearly that, people know where they stand with him, he won't let them down.( not that there's anywhere much lower to go). Clinton is a much more sophisticated politician even if she has tripped up a few times, but she is of almost equally doubtful ethical convictions, she is much smoother at masking her beliefs and intentions. She may not want to build a wall between Mexico and the US or feel that anybody ought to be booted out of the country because of their religious beliefs but there is really little reason to think she has any real interest in the citizenry except as a necessary evil to be pacified so as to get to power. It's long been an accepted truism that promises made during an election campaign are understood to be null and void as soon as the politician actually gets in. That May isn't taking hold of the various excuses not to follow up on the Brexit vote is fairly astonishing in that light and suggests that she DOES have a sense of ethics; however it happened the majority of the people voted for Brexit, so Brexit it is. I very much doubt Clinton would have chosen the same path.

[mgoetze]

Brexit seems to have had quite the impact on UK Academia already:

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/jul/12/uk-scientists-dropped-from-eu-projects-because-of-post-brexit-funding-fears

[mike777]

The problem is that many if not most politicians (at least in North America,it may be different in Europe), DO favor multinational corporations over the people they are supposed to represent. A fine example is the DARK act, which with enormous pressure from the public, got defeated, and yet here it is again this week, slightly modified so that some of the information will be on labels but in such tiny print and in such a complicated manner that it is virtually NOT there for most people. This is clearly a sop to the chem-ag people, as the vast majority of people want GMO labelling and the politicians KNOW that but are ignoring it as best they can. This is not any sort of meaningful representation for, of and by the people.

 

Medical researchers and doctors called on the FDA to upgrade the food pyramid, which is not only extremely outdated according to the science of at least the last dozen years but also it seems, based on carefully selected data in the first place. In response the politicians have watered down their recommendations to miniscule changes with no excuse other than putting out the more accurate data would interfere with the profits of multinationals. What is there to respect?

 

In the US, politicians move in and out of the business arena, eg, ex Monsanto employees control the FDA and it was an ex Monsanto lawyer on the Supreme Court who drove the decision to allow patenting of genetic material. A Monsanto lawyer has been suggested as a possible VP for Clinton. There may be separation of church and state but there is decidedly no separation of multinational corporations and state and this is leading to a lot of very bad laws which are working directly against the interests of the people in favor of the interests of the multinationals. When San Salvador banned glyphosate because of the clear connection between it and an epidemic of farmer's deaths, Obama threatened to withdraw foreign aid unless they reversed the ban, it was only after it was made public by Salvador and there was a fuss about it did he retract..and then only for Salvador, not for three other countries also trying to ban it for the same reason.

 

Scientists have unfortunately now got a relatively well earned reputation as a group as being for sale and much of the supposed "research" supports that reputation. This is their own fault as a group for not policing their peers and calling them to account for lousy if not actually false reporting of studies and their results.

 

Scientists who have been libelled and harassed, their reputations slandered and their jobs jeapordized by special interest groups should not have to go to a court of law to defend themselves if the scientific community was doing an adequate job to ensure that the "science" that's put out there actually IS science. Right now, the first question which has to be asked, is "who is paying for this study?" as it seems as though you can almost predict the results if you know that. That can hardly be science, that's simply justification and as such is highly suspect, and it's no wonder people don't trust scientists anymore. Prescription drugs which "cure" symptoms but kill as a side effect are a prime example, properly prescribed medications taken according to instructions are said to be among the leading causes of death in the US now, even by the AMA. How can that be if the studies are properly done and reported as to risk analysis?

 

Too many politicians and scientists, (without question there are exceptions, possibly many more than the duds, but the point remains) have discarded ethical behaviour in the pursuit of personal financial gain. And their peers are NOT holding them responsible, so by passivity are to a degree complicit. Life is complicated now and people generally don't have the time to track down and investigate everything for themselves,if they even know how, or they have no way to determine what actually are "the facts". So they choose who to believe - if anyone- and otherwise don't trust anyone or anything. This is a very very sad state of affairs and entirely of the politicians and scientists own making. Respect has to be earned and clearly large numbers of these groups clearly hold respect as very small potatoes indeed in the face of what they have to gain if they don't care about it.

 

I tend to think that's part of Trump's appeal, he is a selfcentred racist misogynist con man, but he is clearly that, people know where they stand with him, he won't let them down.( not that there's anywhere much lower to go). Clinton is a much more sophisticated politician even if she has tripped up a few times, but she is of almost equally doubtful ethical convictions, she is much smoother at masking her beliefs and intentions. She may not want to build a wall between Mexico and the US or feel that anybody ought to be booted out of the country because of their religious beliefs but there is really little reason to think she has any real interest in the citizenry except as a necessary evil to be pacified so as to get to power. It's long been an accepted truism that promises made during an election campaign are understood to be null and void as soon as the politician actually gets in. That May isn't taking hold of the various excuses not to follow up on the Brexit vote is fairly astonishing in that light and suggests that she DOES have a sense of ethics; however it happened the majority of the people voted for Brexit, so Brexit it is. I very much doubt Clinton would have chosen the same path.

 

You say the majority of the people want gmo labeling.....the majority of people also want dna labeling...if a food product has dna in it they want it put on the label.......

 

It just proves people are scared of science.

 

---

"...I tend to think that's part of Trump's appeal, he is a selfcentred racist misogynist con man,..."

 

As far as the Trump bashing goes it just seems like one more personal attack on the man.

saying he hates people of color(racist) and women pretty much ends the conversation. Saying that is why people support him because hates people of color and women attacks the voters.

[Cyberyeti]

You say the majority of the people want gmo labeling.....the majority of people also want dna labeling...if a food product has dna in it they want it put on the label.......

 

It just proves people are scared of science.

 

---

"...I tend to think that's part of Trump's appeal, he is a selfcentred racist misogynist con man,..."

 

As far as the Trump bashing goes it just seems like one more personal attack on the man.

saying he hates people of color(racist) and women pretty much ends the conversation. Saying that is why people support him because hates people of color and women attacks the voters.

 

GMO labelling while an issue is particularly difficult (some GMOs are fine, how you distinguish those from the ones that sren't is really awkward) . It's part of a whole debate over here, the sort of thing we're much more worried about is not being to label US hormone laden beef and this was why a lot of people were up in arms over TTIP.

 

I think there are enough statements straight out of Trump's mouth that indicate that many of the attacks on him are not without foundation.

[cherdano]

As far as the Trump bashing goes it just seems like one more personal attack on the man.

saying he hates people of color(racist) and women pretty much ends the conversation.

That's besides the point. The question isn't whether Trump is racist. Either he is one, or he plays one in public.

Saying that is why people support him because hates people of color and women attacks the voters.

The majority of Republicans say that discrimination against Whites is at least as big a problem today in the USA as discrimination against minorities.

Would it be more PC to say that such views might explain voting for Trump?

[Zelandakh]

This is clearly a sop to the chem-ag people, as the vast majority of people want GMO labelling and the politicians KNOW that but are ignoring it as best they can. This is not any sort of meaningful representation for, of and by the people.

Is it your considered opinion then that any time the elected representatives decide that the best interests of the country are different from the opinion of the majority of voters, this is a bad thing? How about if the majority of Americans decided it would be a good idea to hunt down all African-Americans? or Mexicans? or Muslims? Do you think this would be good government? Similarly, if you surveyed Americans and asked them if a tax cut to 5% across the board was a good idea, the majority may well answer affirmatively. Again, that does not mean it would end well. People are stupid, this is why we have elected officials who, hopefully, are in a position to look at issues from a broader perspective. Perhaps they have looked into the issue more deeply than you have. Perhaps they are corrupt. And perhaps turning every WC thread into a discussion of GMOs and climate change is unnecessary. At least leave the odd thread for a sidebar to religion - that is always just so entertaining. :unsure:

[WellSpyder]

How about if the majority of Americans decided it would be a good idea to hunt down all African-Americans? or Mexicans? or Muslims? Do you think this would be good government? Similarly, if you surveyed Americans and asked them if a tax cut to 5% across the board was a good idea, the majority may well answer affirmatively. Again, that does not mean it would end well. People are stupid, this is why we have elected officials who, hopefully, are in a position to look at issues from a broader perspective.

This is the Brexit thread. How did you resist the temptation to use that as an example of what happens if you rely on the views of the majority of voters rather than their elected representatives?

[Zelandakh]

This is the Brexit thread. How did you resist the temptation to use that as an example of what happens if you rely on the views of the majority of voters rather than their elected representatives?

For the same reason that I did not use the death penalty. It is arguable that the majority course is a good one in these cases whereas the protection of minority rights and populist actions taken out of context for the economy as a whole are things that I suspect everyone here can agree on.

[Aberlour10]

B. Johnson as the Foreign Secretary? elephant in a china shop., sorry

[shyams]

B. Johnson as the Foreign Secretary? elephant in a china shop., sorry

 

Agree. However, a small matter that makes a sizable difference. Boris will not be responsible for dealing with the EU and the Brexit negotiations --- i.e. a much diminished foreign secretary role mostly aimed at promoting UK's relations with the US, Asia, Middle East and Africa.

[shyams]

A sincere question:

 

Why does the European Parliament operate from both Strasbourg and Brussels? Why does it not choose one location (logically, Brussels) and conduct all its business from there?

[Aberlour10]

A sincere question:

 

Why does the European Parliament operate from both Strasbourg and Brussels? Why does it not choose one location (logically, Brussels) and conduct all its business from there?

 

its only one of the typical EU nonsenses, This travelling circus costs about 114 000 000 pounds more a year.

 

The historical development of this nonsense here:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament

 

 

 

[Vampyr]

I kind of wonder why so many of the Bremainers didn't turn out to vote.

[1eyedjack]

Agree. However, a small matter that makes a sizable difference. Boris will not be responsible for dealing with the EU and the Brexit negotiations --- i.e. a much diminished foreign secretary role mostly aimed at promoting UK's relations with the US, Asia, Middle East and Africa.

But there is a trade minister also.

 

Maybe foreign secretary is now just a placebo

[1eyedjack]

I kind of wonder why so many of the Bremainers didn't turn out to vote.

They expected a comfortable win.

 

Just as many who voted Brexit expected a comfortable loss.

 

Neither expected their vote to matter.

[cherdano]

Agree. However, a small matter that makes a sizable difference. Boris will not be responsible for dealing with the EU and the Brexit negotiations --- i.e. a much diminished foreign secretary role mostly aimed at promoting UK's relations with the US, Asia, Middle East and Africa.

So. The person who suggested Obama might be motivated by "part-Kenyan heritage and ancestral dislike of the British Empire" will be responsible for the "special relation" with the USA.

 

Seriously, is there any possible government job for which Johnson might be a worse fit than becoming the head of UK diplomacy?

 

Not sure whether to laugh or to cry. Maybe it is a setup to let Boris prove to everyone he isn't suited for higher jobs.

[Vampyr]

They expected a comfortable win.

 

Just as many who voted Brexit expected a comfortable loss.

 

Neither expected their vote to matter.

 

Still, in areas where the Leave vote won, there was a higher (sometimes mch higher) turnout.

[Trinidad]

Brexit seems to have had quite the impact on UK Academia already:

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/jul/12/uk-scientists-dropped-from-eu-projects-because-of-post-brexit-funding-fears

What would you do if you are drafting a proposal for EU funding? Go for the British partner or for the one from e.g. France?

 

These EU projects are meant to promote scientific co-operation within the EU and are paid for by the EU members. The UK just voted that they didn't want to pay for this kind of "nonsense" anymore. What do you think your chances are to get your proposal approved if you have non-EU partners? The best that can happen is that the EU will grant you your project, won't pay for the UK part of it, but does want to see the progress reports from the UK part of the project (because in a true co-operation work by one partner affects the others). So, in the worst case you are ruining your chances to get your project funded. In the best case you don't get extra money, but still need to do the paperwork if you take a UK partner.

 

It would be silly to search for EU co-operation with UK partners, right now, since there is nothing to gain. And since most scientists are pretty intelligent, UK scientists are feeling the results of the Brexit immediately.

 

Rik

[cherdano]

What would you do if you are drafting a proposal for EU funding? Go for the British partner or for the one from e.g. France?

 

These EU projects are meant to promote scientific co-operation within the EU and are paid for by the EU members. The UK just voted that they didn't want to pay for this kind of "nonsense" anymore. What do you think your chances are to get your proposal approved if you have non-EU partners? The best that can happen is that the EU will grant you your project, won't pay for the UK part of it, but does want to see the progress reports from the UK part of the project (because in a true co-operation work by one partner affects the others). So, in the worst case you are ruining your chances to get your project funded. In the best case you don't get extra money, but still need to do the paperwork if you take a UK partner.

 

It would be silly to search for EU co-operation with UK partners, right now, since there is nothing to gain. And since most scientists are pretty intelligent, UK scientists are feeling the results of the Brexit immediately.

 

Rik

Technically, you are wrong.

1. These projects are meant to foster collaboration within EU countries and the Horizon 2020 associated countries (Iceland Norway Albania Bosnia and Herzegovina the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia Montenegro Serbia Turkey Israel Moldova Switzerland (*) Faroe Islands Ukraine Tunisia Georgia). Once the UK leaves the EU, could become an associated country.

2. As long as the UK hasn't triggered article 50 and either negotiated an exit agreement with the EU or the 2-year deadline passes, the UK and the EU are both bound by their commitment to Horizon 2020. The UK is still paying in, and the EU is still committed to paying out.

3. Horizon 2020 only awards money that has already been paid in by member states.

 

But of course, on another level you are right. It's hard to see a resolution to the Brexit negotiations, and if the negotiations become difficult, either side may play hardball by breaking their commitment to

Horizon 2020. If you are preparing a large proposal, that is a large amount of work and has a small chance to succeed, why take even a small risk that would further reduce your odds?