Brexit Discussion Thread.

[Jon the Hat]

5 hours ago, The Doctor said:

http://www.researchresearch.com/news/article/?articleId=1366644

 

The start of a brain drain as academics look to preserve funding.

 

"Whatever status Britain may have in future EU framework programmes it will essentially be a second rate status" - quick Thracian, email him ranting about great again Britain and how we shouldn't even bother trying to negotiate our future survival.

That is a ridiculous statement to make, although it is not unreasonable of course to take precautions if one is entirely reliant on EU funding.

[fuchsntf]

4 hours ago, Thracian said:

Great Again Britain will rule itself. I don't give a toss about ruling other people and never have. "Warships" (or Safekeeping Assistants in the broad sense I am thinking) help, and without them in the future we'll be potential prey for all sorts, and the development of them - and all connected with such work across countless disciplines - would require as many academics as we can muster or as many as might be left when the Chinese have taken their share for the myriad edge-of-technology projects they have in the pipeline.    

Living in Germany, I was (still am)  a remainer.

But If we are to make any success of Brexit, we have to understand there is no negotiations that UK throw up, that EU have to listen to

Your stance may, despite some posters sarcasism, be the only real thought that would succeed.Britain should cut off from EU

'Thoughts of the past' .Forget Negotiations on recent known and given platforms. Then take the stance of stsrting again and create

a total seperate entity of lone-star state mentality.

SEcurity Will anyway, take its natural course, we will be handshaking automatically with our European neighbours,

In that we need each other...

Why waste money on silly talk..make a clean break, on all issues...

One thing never to forget...it was the British Businessmen and weak British politician, who sold Off all British Industries.

We have to rebuild and recreate, because the UK has few quantities to sell.Our Entrenepeurs are our strength,

Our workers in IT also.

We have British cars, IT Hardware houses, Software a few.No Steel, No Unique Agricultral Produce, No Ships,

NO trains or trams, no hosiery business, in fact UK is very plastic, thanks to past poor investment.

The problem in the UK, is not so much the potential workforce, but the Businessmens and incompetent

Politicians arrogant approach.They let us down in the last 50yrs, they are going to lie and cheat also in

this 2+ year period. Even alone UK could have great potential, but not with our leaders across the whole society mentality,

has to change. Plus internally our Avg , base schooling and education needs to change, we have created too many ASBOs

Not just from the Workingclass but  through all levels of the society.

ZHCs are a joke in modern society, it prevents growth, consume and motivation..

Just to prove pathetic organisation skills, plus fair wages Culture , that had no European influence, just look at the NHS,

and other internal Services, that people of the UK is the problem, no dece n t organisation from bosses, and when,

From foreigners...

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, Jon the Hat said:

That is a ridiculous statement to make, although it is not unreasonable of course to take precautions if one is entirely reliant on EU funding.

If you're a UK academic in any hard scientific field you're going to be looking over your shoulder given all this.

 

Mind you, I'm not sure how much of a change that is, really.

[yorkie1999]

2 hours ago, leicsmac said:

If you're a UK academic in any hard scientific field you're going to be looking over your shoulder given all this.

 

Mind you, I'm not sure how much of a change that is, really.

One of the first things that Terresa May did when she come to power was to increase funding in applied r & d by 2 billion rising to 4.7 billion by 2020, by that it means that it is going into research that bears fruit and not into a big pot to fund pointless projects.  

[leicsmac]

9 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

One of the first things that Terresa May did when she come to power was to increase funding in applied r & d by 2 billion rising to 4.7 billion by 2020, by that it means that it is going into research that bears fruit and not into a big pot to fund pointless projects.  

 

I think a clearer definition of 'research that bears fruit' is needed here.

 

But, that aside, unless a truly gargantuan amount of money is going to be chucked at STEM (like the amount the Chinese or the Americans put into it) by the UK we're going to fall behind without collaboration, and like or not such collaboration is being made more difficult by this.

 

The UK academics know this, which is why they are looking for other options.

[DANGEROUS TIGER]

19 hours ago, The Doctor said:

Even with a top team of negotiators we'd end up with a worse trade deal than we have currently, Alfs example of a gym is a fair comparison - you can't get a better deal for using the services on PAYG terms than as a member: if you could then no-one would bother to have a membership; and even then we'd not have a deal in place in time for leaving, they take decades to negotiate.

But, we don't have a top team of negotiators, we've got the three stooges and an insane plan to blackmail the EU with withdrawing our security knowledge (as if our obligations to NATO just cease by leaving a group NATO cooperate with). 

 

10 hours ago, The Doctor said:

You say prejudice, I say realism. We've got people like Gove suggesting that we should scrap the CTD when we leave despite that: a) the CTD is being scrapped and replaced by the CTR next year anyway, b) the CTD is important for ensuring the safety of our drugs, and it's replacement is a godsend for transparency over pharma R&D, and c) the pharma industry will insist on being homogeneous with the EU to enable them to continue trade in the EU.

 

Any time the chief Brexiteers opens their mouth it becomes blindingly apparent they're less fit to represent us over this than Rudkin is to negotiate city's transfers, anyone who honestly sees otherwise is deluded. 

What a load of unadulterated bigotry you have posted. It is clear that you are another wet behind the ears, misguided sore loser.

 

The people of this country voted to leave the EU in a democratic vote. Something the EU and your ilk do not believe in.

 

There is going to some very tough talking from both sides for the foreseeable future, but we, as a true bull dog spirited nation, will not flinch from our commitment to leave, and take this wonderful country of ours back, and move diligently forward.

 

Try and stop  being so ignorantly puerile, eh, sonny?.

[Sharpe's Fox]

[Facecloth]

31 minutes ago, DANGEROUS TIGER said:

 

What a load of unadulterated bigotry you have posted. It is clear that you are another wet behind the ears, misguided sore loser.

 

The people of this country voted to leave the EU in a democratic vote. Something the EU and your ilk do not believe in.

 

There is going to some very tough talking from both sides for the foreseeable future, but we, as a true bull dog spirited nation, will not flinch from our commitment to leave, and take this wonderful country of ours back, and move diligently forward.

 

Try and stop  being so ignorantly puerile, eh, sonny?.

"Yeah make Britain great again, blah, blah, blah, endless foundless bullshit harking back to a bygone age." 

 

Idiot.

 

Why don't you try and address his worries, argue against the points he makes, rather than trot out this overly patriotic claptrap that we're heading towards some utopia that you've not got a clue how to get to.

[Wymsey]

3 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

"Yeah make Britain great again, blah, blah, blah, endless foundlesd bullshit harking back to a bygone age." 

 

Idiot.

 

Why don't you try and address his worries, argue against the points he makes, rather than trot out this overly patriotic claptrap that we're heading towards some utopia that you've not got a clue how to get to.

There's more chance of Britain returning to the EU than Dangerous Tiger replying sensibly to this imo.

[leicsmac]

19 minutes ago, DANGEROUS TIGER said:

 

What a load of unadulterated bigotry you have posted. It is clear that you are another wet behind the ears, misguided sore loser.

 

The people of this country voted to leave the EU in a democratic vote. Something the EU and your ilk do not believe in.

 

There is going to some very tough talking from both sides for the foreseeable future, but we, as a true bull dog spirited nation, will not flinch from our commitment to leave, and take this wonderful country of ours back, and move diligently forward.

 

Try and stop  being so ignorantly puerile, eh, sonny?.

 

Do you know much about collaborative scientific research procedures...or indeed any scientific research procedures at all, DT?

[The Doctor]

16 minutes ago, DANGEROUS TIGER said:

 

Try and stop  being so ignorantly puerile, eh, sonny?.

Feck it. I'll reply to Webbo later when I'vegot time to argue the merits of slow progression to market and proper testing prior to drugs being available; but for this it's a fairly easy pot kettle.

 

For the record, I do believe in democracy, but I don't agree that referenda are good for democracy; but even if I did agree with referendums in principle, doesn't mean I have to agree with the result. Something euroskeptics should know full well, given how they bitched and whined about the EEC/EU for 40 years after a referendum took us in.

[davieG]

6 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

Feck it. I'll reply to Webbo later when I'vegot time to argue the merits of slow progression to market and proper testing prior to drugs being available; but for this it's a fairly easy pot kettle.

 

For the record, I do believe in democracy, but I don't agree that referenda are good for democracy; but even if I did agree with referendums in principle, doesn't mean I have to agree with the result. Something euroskeptics should know full well, given how they bitched and whined about the EEC/EU for 40 years after a referendum took us in.

Actually we were already in the referendum was post joining.

 

"Britain had joined the European Economic Community – or the Common Market, as it was widely known – on 1 January 1973. After two failed attempts in the 1960s, success was finally achieved by the Conservative government of Ted Heath, who had come to power in 1970 promising “nothing less” than “to change the course of history of this nation”. Joining the EEC was central to that ambition; yet his achievement was almost throttled at birth. When the Heath government fell in 1974 it was replaced by a Labour administration that was bitterly divided on Europe. To hold his party together, the new prime minister, Harold Wilson, made a twofold promise: he would renegotiate the terms of membership, then put them to the people in a referendum."

http://www.historyextra.com/article/international-history/1975-referendum

[yorkie1999]

53 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I think a clearer definition of 'research that bears fruit' is needed here.

 

But, that aside, unless a truly gargantuan amount of money is going to be chucked at STEM (like the amount the Chinese or the Americans put into it) by the UK we're going to fall behind without collaboration, and like or not such collaboration is being made more difficult by this.

 

The UK academics know this, which is why they are looking for other options.

 Well. i do know, through the type of work i'm involved with, a lot of this type of eu funding is going into r&d facilities and technical academies that have been set up over the past decade or so, with the aim of producing new ideas,  methodologies and personnel in order to "sell on" to industry, and basically, it's not working, and the main reason is because it's industry (F1, Areospace etc) that drives new ideas and techniques, after all that's how you get ahead in the game, and the top minds are employed by private companies because that's where the money is!  So, from what i have heard, UK government funding is going to be directed more towards hi tech British companies so they manage their own R&D, create a competitive environment and therefore raise the profile of British companies,  and Mrs May is behind this thought plan. 

[The Doctor]

11 hours ago, Webbo said:

Or it could be that these regulations make life saving drugs more expensive and take longer to come  market.

 

I've already explained why big business like regulation but there were plenty of businesspeople in favour of leaving.

Granted, that is the case however those life saving drugs are a tiny proportion of all drugs that go through clinical trials. The vast majority of drugs developed will never make it to the final stage of clinical trials, and even then 50% of those that do will fail because they're no better than those currently on the market. 

 

You can claim that clinical trials present a red tape that slows life saving drugs getting to market and being available to those who need it, and you'd likely be able to find examples of such, but in the vast majority of cases what it actually stops is ineffective or even dangerous drugs making it to market and causing damage to the national health.

[leicsmac]

32 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

 Well. i do know, through the type of work i'm involved with, a lot of this type of eu funding is going into r&d facilities and technical academies that have been set up over the past decade or so, with the aim of producing new ideas,  methodologies and personnel in order to "sell on" to industry, and basically, it's not working, and the main reason is because it's industry (F1, Areospace etc) that drives new ideas and techniques, after all that's how you get ahead in the game, and the top minds are employed by private companies because that's where the money is!  So, from what i have heard, UK government funding is going to be directed more towards hi tech British companies so they manage their own R&D, create a competitive environment and therefore raise the profile of British companies,  and Mrs May is behind this thought plan. 

 

 

So you're saying the best brains are already working for private companies? That's a possible point.

 

It doesn't, however, detract from the point that bigger research needs the level of pooled funds and minds that no one country (again, outside of the US and China) can provide.

[DANGEROUS TIGER]

1 hour ago, Facecloth said:

"Yeah make Britain great again, blah, blah, blah, endless foundless bullshit harking back to a bygone age." 

 

Idiot.

 

Why don't you try and address his worries, argue against the points he makes, rather than trot out this overly patriotic claptrap that we're heading towards some utopia that you've not got a clue how to get to.

When you eventually grow up, you might begin to think about  what you are saying., master blah, blah, bloodying boring, blah.

[DANGEROUS TIGER]

1 hour ago, The Doctor said:

Feck it. I'll reply to Webbo later when I'vegot time to argue the merits of slow progression to market and proper testing prior to drugs being available; but for this it's a fairly easy pot kettle.

 

For the record, I do believe in democracy, but I don't agree that referenda are good for democracy; but even if I did agree with referendums in principle, doesn't mean I have to agree with the result. Something euroskeptics should know full well, given how they bitched and whined about the EEC/EU for 40 years after a referendum took us in.

You appear to be "bitching" yourself" thus my response. I certainly have no problem with people having reservations over Brexit itself, although I am completely confident that economically we shall ultimately be stronger, and rid ourselves of the European law makers, who are a mill stone around our neck's.

 

The referendum of 40 years ago, for your information, was for the "Common Market", which was purely related to trade between our nations, (for which I voted yes to). Over the years it has changed into the political metamorphosis that we have had added, and had to tolerate, without a say. The "Common Market" was very far detached from the EU.

[Facecloth]

13 minutes ago, DANGEROUS TIGER said:

When you eventually grow up, you might begin to think about  what you are saying., master blah, blah, bloodying boring, blah.

When I grow up? Please

 

Again you've posted a post of nothing, offered no incite and argued no points. Maybe when you grow up you'll be prepared to discuss Brexit properly with people who have genuine knowledge and genuine fears. Wasn't not addressing genuine fears of brexiters half the problem in the first place?

 

Age isn't is a guarantee of knowledge and it isn't a guarantee of more life experience. There are 20 year olds out there who will have been through more than you could imagine, and there are 70 year old who don't have a clue about anything. Don't throw your age in our faces like it makes you superior to us, try throwing your knowledge at us (if you have any) and you might get a tad more respect for your views.

[Webbo]

23 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

Granted, that is the case however those life saving drugs are a tiny proportion of all drugs that go through clinical trials. The vast majority of drugs developed will never make it to the final stage of clinical trials, and even then 50% of those that do will fail because they're no better than those currently on the market. 

 

You can claim that clinical trials present a red tape that slows life saving drugs getting to market and being available to those who need it, and you'd likely be able to find examples of such, but in the vast majority of cases what it actually stops is ineffective or even dangerous drugs making it to market and causing damage to the national health.

Why should a British testing regime be inferior to an EU 1? Why would our govt want dangerous drugs on the market. 

[The Doctor]

Just now, Webbo said:

Why should a British testing regime be inferior to an EU 1? Why would our govt want dangerous drugs on the market. 

Ask Gove, he's the one advocating scrapping the clinical trial regulations. Of course if they are scrapped and the infrastructure to carry them out is disposed of then the pharmaceutical industry will end up looking at pulling out of Britain and moving to the eu to ensure they can bring to market on the continent.

 

7 minutes ago, DANGEROUS TIGER said:

You appear to be "bitching" yourself" thus my response. I certainly have no problem with people having reservations over Brexit itself, although I am completely confident that economically we shall ultimately be stronger, and rid ourselves of the European law makers, who are a mill stone around our neck's.

 

 

 

can you name a single EU law that has been a hinderance and bad for the people of this country?

 

The referendum of 40 years ago, for your information, was for the "Common Market", which was purely related to trade between our nations, (for which I voted yes to). 

 

Hence why I said EEC/EU rather than just EU

[Webbo]

1 hour ago, The Doctor said:

Ask Gove, he's the one advocating scrapping the clinical trial regulations. Of course if they are scrapped and the infrastructure to carry them out is disposed of then the pharmaceutical industry will end up looking at pulling out of Britain and moving to the eu to ensure they can bring to market on the continent.

 

 

 

Scraping all regulations or just changing them?Also Michael Gove is a back bencher, how come all of a sudden he's in charge of clinical trials?

[Strokes]

11 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Scraping all regulations or just changing them?Also Michael Gove is a back bencher, how come all of a sudden he's in charge of clinical trials?

I asked this earlier and got told some nonsense about a tiny majority and how he could still have some power. No I don't get it either.

[Buce]

EU rules out early trade talks:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-39453338

 

 

Looks like Gibraltar might be a spanner in the works:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39453535

[The Doctor]

25 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Scraping all regulations or just changing them?Also Michael Gove is a back bencher, how come all of a sudden he's in charge of clinical trials?

He's been fairly clear on scrapping them.

 

Alf already explained the problem to you - a government prepared to make massive changes to our statues without any parliamentary scrutiny, which can easily be swayed by back-bench extremists. Gove may not be the minister for health, but you've got to be kidding yourself if you think he's just one nutter without a say.

[Webbo]

3 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

He's been fairly clear on scrapping them.

 

Alf already explained the problem to you - a government prepared to make massive changes to our statues without any parliamentary scrutiny, which can easily be swayed by back-bench extremists. Gove may not be the minister for health, but you've got to be kidding yourself if you think he's just one nutter without a say.

I don't think it's me who's kidding myself.