It seems like you are correct although the other stuff about the EU funding research and development is true. There is a mass of scientific research that the EU helps fund and enable. Plus the free movement of people across the whole of the EU allows people to work in different countries and collaborate with other nations. Something which isn't guaranteed to continue if we leave the EU. I mean if we restrict the number of Europeans who can come to our country why wouldn't they restrict the number of British people who come to theirs?
Poll: The EU Referendum: How Will You Vote? (May Poll)
- Thread starter Burnsy2023
- Start date
- Status
It seems like you are correct although the other stuff about the EU funding research and development is true. There is a mass of scientific research that the EU helps fund and enable. Plus the free movement of people across the whole of the EU allows people to work in different countries and collaborate with other nations. Something which isn't guaranteed to continue if we leave the EU. I mean if we restrict the number of Europeans who can come to our country why wouldn't they restrict the number of British people who come to theirs?
Yup. I'm expecting a serious brain drain if we Brexit, and a worse one if we're so stupid to abandon free movement and the EEA altogether.
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Jun 2012
- Posts
- 9,898
- Location
- South Wales
I do agree that's short-termist but I honestly don't know if we would be better out than in so it pushes me over the edge to stay.
The only issue that matters here is one of sovereignty.
If you want to be a free country that governs itself, you vote 'LEAVE'.
If you want to be a subservient nation, ruled by third and largely unaccountable parties in Brussels, vote 'REMAIN'.
Freedom is the central issue. And I find it hard to believe that anyone will vote to not be free.
If you want to be a free country that governs itself, you vote 'LEAVE'.
If you want to be a subservient nation, ruled by third and largely unaccountable parties in Brussels, vote 'REMAIN'.
Freedom is the central issue. And I find it hard to believe that anyone will vote to not be free.
We are not ruled by Brussels: on all the major areas of law - education, transport, health, taxation, benefits - our government has far greater influence than the EU.
And the EU is not unaccountable: it's accountable to directly elected representatives in the EU parliament, and to the democratically elected governments of the the member states.
I'm impressed that you managed to contradict yourself in the space of four lines. Sovereignty has little to do with freedom and Brexit stands a good chance of making of us all less free when we lose the right to live and work anywhere in Europe. This is a massive freedom, enjoyed by millions of Brits during their lifetime and voting Leave puts it at risk.
I'm all for that Scientific funding, I just think it'd be a fairly straight forward thing to match the current level of funding. I'm not sure why that's even an argument to remain. We'd probably need to do that in a lot of areas
You are correct but the number of people that actually want work anywhere in the EU is very small as a % of the population. Most people will be born grown up and kick the bucket in the same region. These people are the majority and they don't see that as a loss.
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2012
- Posts
- 11,698
- Location
- Surrey
You think it is straight forward because you have not worked in the industry.
The government has neglected it for years and i dont see the government changing its direction nor volunteering to fund foreign science students who want to come here and study and eventually work as researchers but can't afford to without support from the EU.
These foreign students are invaluable to science in the UK, we simply dont output that many researchers and you will find many research teams rely on foreign researchers who came here as students, which received funding to come and study due to being from an EU country and going to an EU country.
Last edited:
I emailed the BBC regarding a lack of a poll tracker and would like to think that they took my request seriously. It is now there
The issue is not the level of the funding (although given how very, very little our government currently gives to research I personally doubt we'd see current levels maintained after Brexit), it's the international collaborations and movement of people that are the heart of good science. The EU is very good at fostering these, and the UK disproportionately benefits from these collaborations.
2.2 million Brits currently live abroad in the EU. That's about 3.5% of the population. That's a considerable number of people and that figure is ignoring people who have lived there in the past, live there part-time or have moved there on a short-term basis.
Thanks you confirmed my statement about the majority of Brits sticking in the UK from cradle to grave
2.2 million is a big number but 3.5% is a very small proportion.
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2012
- Posts
- 11,698
- Location
- Surrey
Yes but the remaining 96.5% dont agree on leaving being the better choice for them even if they stay locally.
They've the majority, aye, but the numbers of people who spend at least a bit of time living, working or studying in Europe - or have friends, partners, etc. who are using the reciprocal right - is growing and it's not small. I couldn't find any figures estimating the total number of British citizens who have lived in the EU during their lifetime, but consider that there are about 2.2 million Brits living abroad and UK long term immigration of British citizens returning to the UK is running at around 75,000-100,000 a year and you get an idea of the level of turnover of long term migrants before you even consider people who spent less than a year using the rights. I would estimate that we're looking at somewhere around 6 million Brits who will live and work in the EU for longer than a year and probably about the same again who use the rights for shorter periods.
The EU is nigh on unaccountable. MEPs can't draft laws, or amendments, only the commission can.
The commission isn't elected by the public, but instead chosen by the EU president, which is in turn elected by the MEPs from a list of candidates chosen by the council, which is made up of the heads of member states. Its democracy in the loosest possible sense of the word.
To decide have a say in the laws of the EU, we must elect a national government that agrees with us, hope that they can win the diplomatic contest to choose presidential candidates to out liking. Then vote for MEPs to agree this choice - under a vastly different voting system to the national elections - get the MEPs to form a large voting block with other MEPs by making policy compromises with other nations, and then hope that their vote is enough to secure the president of our choosing.
We must then hope that this new president, will elect members of the commission that we hope the UK agrees with (one per member state). Heads of member states have some say in this, but very little.
So then, having elected a capable head of state, who has won a 28 way battle to get our candidate of choice, and our MEPs voted on the winning side in the election, and the commission members chosen, we must then as a country, or special interest groups, or corporations, lobby the commision to draft laws and amendments to our liking. These are then passed to the MEPs to debate and vote upon - but not change directly - and we must hope that our MEPs can gather enough political influence to get a majority vote.
We've had one EU commission president, who was the choice of the labour party in the year that Thatcher was elected, and whose legacy was the EU monetary policy, which was an utter disaster for the UK.
Democratic and accountable eh?
Oh, and there is no appetite for reform of this system at all.
Lets then look at those listed major areas of law:
Education: Vast majority British. There is the €14B Erasmus programme, which funds students and lecturers to study in different institutes across the EU, common targets set for school leavers in all states, some incentives for members states to adopt specific policies, and the common recognition of all diplomas across the EU. There are longer term ambitions for greater powers, but they are very much low priority.
Transport: EU has domain over most elements of Air travel, haulage, shipping and road safety.
On rail they've made it so that any EU organisation can compete for any rail franchise across the EU (which is why most of our rail network is operated by France and Germany). Which makes it next to impossible to privatise the UK rail industry.
They also direct most rail infrastructure investment across the continent. They are one of the major driving forces for the construction of HS2, and are the reason why rail electrification and investment in the UK is directed north to south, rather than east to west.
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/infrastructure/news/2015-05-28-coordinator-work-plans_en.htm
Health: Like education, the majority of health policy is decided in the UK. There is the EHIC system, and calls for health policies across the EU to be harmonised and opened up for competition, but again is very far into the future.
Taxation: Mostly British. VAT is harmonised across the EU, and the UK faces great difficulty in changing VAT laws. There are strong calls for harmonisation of corporation tax, as well as any taxes that might impact on the competition of labour between states.
The commission also advises all members states on their taxation, so that countries do develop vastly different systems. Long term you can expect powers to be increasingly decided by the commision.
In the case of a failing economy such as Greece, the EU steps in and decides everything.
Benefits: Again, mostly British. The little say that the EU does have over benefits in the UK was one of Cameron's main aims in the "renegotiation", and we all know how difficult it was for him to get his minor changes.
Here are some other areas of law.
Trade: The UK has next to no say whatsoever.
Immigration: Free movement of EU citizens is here to stay. We're not in Schengen, but we don't have full control over borders.
Business regulations: The EU decides the vast majority of this. Its widely considered to be very harmful to small firms in the UK.
Defence: Member states contribute to a small EU military force that mainly works with the UN. Calls for a greater EU army are being voiced by many within the EU in response the the Ukrainian conflicts, and work has begun in expanding the EU's military capability and its legal power to use it.
Crime: Mostly British, but europol and the EU arrest warrant means that this is starting to fall under EU control as well.
Foreign Policy: Harmonisation of Foreign policy and removing member state representation at international bodies such as the WTO and UN is one of the main objectives of the 5 presidents report, and will be enshrined into Law at the next treaty change.
Finance: The 5 presidents report looks to take control of the vast majority of financial regulation of the eurozone, and is will also have heavy implications on the city of London, though exactly how is unknown.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 7,613
How’s the weather in Oppositeland?
UK - Population 60million, MEP's 72
Luxembourg - Population 460,000 MEP's 5.
Tell us more about a fair proportional say.
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2012
- Posts
- 11,698
- Location
- Surrey
Tell me of the UKs participation compared to Luxembourg?
Well, i suppose you cant directly compare population numbers. Also, congrats on cherry picking luxembourg.
Well, i suppose you cant directly compare population numbers. Also, congrats on cherry picking luxembourg.
Well we are at complete opposite ends of the spectrum, only Spain and France have worse proportional representation than us.
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2012
- Posts
- 11,698
- Location
- Surrey
Proportional to population?
Proportional to contribution?
Proportional to participation?
Proportional to... what?
Proportional to contribution?
Proportional to participation?
Proportional to... what?
- Status