Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
Why Do The Stay In Campaign Have Nothing Good To Say About The Eu?
113 Answers
On Andrew Marr this morning Nigel Lawson said "There is no campaign to love the EU only to try and scare the pants of those who may vote to leave" - I think he was bang on, so is there any reason to stay in reality?
Answers
“Why Do The Stay In Campaign Have Nothing Good To Say About The Eu?” Simples! Because there is nothing good to say about the EU. It is an anti-
13:28 Sun 10th Apr 2016
It's the "blinkered" I dislike (obviously I'm too young to have known a non-EU UK) and it shouldn't be at all supported. I thought you, or at least many Brexiters, have been busy complaining about how dismissive people are about you (eg Eddie in this thread when he calls you xenophobic). So that is unacceptable, but calling me blinkered is totally OK?
Jim, I haven’t complained that people are dismissive of me. I simply corrected Eddie’s grossly erroneous statement. You appear to have a one-track mind on this issue and therefore you do some across as ‘blinkered’. I can't think of another word to describe it at the moment, but if you know one I’ll happily use it.
I can see this helping unify EU members.
http://
http://
It's a separate question I suppose how I should rank various insults. For now, I'm trying to make an argument and I'm hoping to be taken seriously. Comments about my age, or anyone else's of course, should be irrelevant. What I say is correct or not, or important or not, in spite of my age, and not because of it.
As to the "one-track mind" label, is it really any different to anyone else on this thread? Doesn't look like you accept that there are any benefits at all to the EU, at least none that matter to you. Am I to take that as blinkered? Surely not. Or perhaps Balders, who hasn't even bothered to offer a point at all, merely dismissing me with a virtual wave of the hand; or TTT and baz, who seem determined to paint the EU as worse than Stalin. I may have reached a decision but then so have you, and that doesn't make you, or me, "blinkered".
* * *
But anyway. Some comments on the funding question, since it's been asked. The matter is very complex, and I've only done some cursory research, but basically one problem Brexiters would have on the research funding issue is that the UK government doesn't seem to take its research funding nearly as seriously as the EU does, with essentially a flat R&D budget for the last and next five years. By contrast, EU funding for science has been increasing dramatically lately, driving the levels up, and the UK is the greatest single beneficiary of the EU's scientific funding. Can we close the shortfall? Probably. Will we, though? That's in far more doubt. It is more likely that the money gained from leaving with the EU is going to be largely spent elsewhere, then, leaving an expected gap is R&D funding, at least in the short- to medium-term.
See, for example:
http://
As to the "one-track mind" label, is it really any different to anyone else on this thread? Doesn't look like you accept that there are any benefits at all to the EU, at least none that matter to you. Am I to take that as blinkered? Surely not. Or perhaps Balders, who hasn't even bothered to offer a point at all, merely dismissing me with a virtual wave of the hand; or TTT and baz, who seem determined to paint the EU as worse than Stalin. I may have reached a decision but then so have you, and that doesn't make you, or me, "blinkered".
* * *
But anyway. Some comments on the funding question, since it's been asked. The matter is very complex, and I've only done some cursory research, but basically one problem Brexiters would have on the research funding issue is that the UK government doesn't seem to take its research funding nearly as seriously as the EU does, with essentially a flat R&D budget for the last and next five years. By contrast, EU funding for science has been increasing dramatically lately, driving the levels up, and the UK is the greatest single beneficiary of the EU's scientific funding. Can we close the shortfall? Probably. Will we, though? That's in far more doubt. It is more likely that the money gained from leaving with the EU is going to be largely spent elsewhere, then, leaving an expected gap is R&D funding, at least in the short- to medium-term.
See, for example:
http://
Jim
//It does provide a benefit in my field//
At £55 million a day for x amount of years how has the UK benefited in your field?
20 years ago Malta didn't have a pot to pee in. Now I get lost with every mew super highway provided by EU grants. Meanwhile back in blighty 2 weeks ago a cyclist dies in the network of pot holes we cant afford to fix.
I am sure Cancer research could make great use with just one days funding of the corrupt EU by the UK.
//It does provide a benefit in my field//
At £55 million a day for x amount of years how has the UK benefited in your field?
20 years ago Malta didn't have a pot to pee in. Now I get lost with every mew super highway provided by EU grants. Meanwhile back in blighty 2 weeks ago a cyclist dies in the network of pot holes we cant afford to fix.
I am sure Cancer research could make great use with just one days funding of the corrupt EU by the UK.
//The matter is very complex, and I've only done some cursory research, but basically one problem Brexiters would have on the research funding issue is that the UK government doesn't seem to take its research funding nearly as seriously as the EU does, with essentially a flat R&D budget for the last and next five years. By contrast, EU funding for science has been increasing dramatically lately, driving the levels up, and the UK is the greatest single beneficiary of the EU's scientific funding.//
Note. "Cursory research" Doesn't appear to make jim feel he is less than an expert in the field.
Who says that Britain doesn't take research seriously compared to the EU. Our only failure recently has been to underfund the research required to refute the lies that are funnelled out of Brussels on a daily basis.
The UK, may well be the single most inventive font of original thought in whole of Europe, of course the EUSSR wants to glean our ideas, and pay for the knowledge with our own money. The most dangerous fool is the clever one.
Note. "Cursory research" Doesn't appear to make jim feel he is less than an expert in the field.
Who says that Britain doesn't take research seriously compared to the EU. Our only failure recently has been to underfund the research required to refute the lies that are funnelled out of Brussels on a daily basis.
The UK, may well be the single most inventive font of original thought in whole of Europe, of course the EUSSR wants to glean our ideas, and pay for the knowledge with our own money. The most dangerous fool is the clever one.
“Brexiters would have on the research funding issue is that the UK government doesn't seem to take its research funding nearly as seriously as the EU does,”
Alas, once again, Jim, and as with your responses to earlier questions on the topic, you are missing the point. Decisions on what the UK’s funds should be spent on should be a matter for the UK’s Parliament. It may well be that the EU’s R&D priorities are different to those of the UK. In this particular instance it suits you to side with the EU. However, those priorities are determined with the best interests of 28 nations in mind (or more specifically, the best interests of the majority of those nations). There might, just might, be an occasion or two when those best interests not only do not coincide with your best interests but may also not coincide with those of the UK as a whole. This is where the problems begin. As I have explained before, in more than 80% of instances where the UK has opposed proposals made by the EU, those proposals have been passed nonetheless.
It may well be that on the particular issue of R&D the EU’s decisions suit you best. But experience (and simple arithmetic) shows that in the vast majority of cases the decisions made by the EU will not coincide with the best interests of the UK. Furthermore, as we have discussed before, although you feel you have no influence over matters made in the UK Parliament, you have infinitely less influence over matters made in the EU “Parliament” (as it is quaintly called).
I think if you broadened your horizons away from your particular hobby horse and considered how the best interests, overall, of the UK will be served, you may well decide that the Westminster Parliament is probably more likely to side with the best interests of the UK than is the Brussels/Strasbourg version. Furthermore, you have the opportunity every five years to turf out those whom you believe are not acting in your best interests. By contrast, if you want to do the same to the European Parliament, even disregarding that MEP's have very little power, your wishes will have to coincide not only with the majority of your fellow UK citizens, but also with the majority those of 27 other very disparate nations. Of course, if you consider that the interests of the other 27 nations are of more importance than the interests of the UK, then the EU is obviously the answer.
Alas, once again, Jim, and as with your responses to earlier questions on the topic, you are missing the point. Decisions on what the UK’s funds should be spent on should be a matter for the UK’s Parliament. It may well be that the EU’s R&D priorities are different to those of the UK. In this particular instance it suits you to side with the EU. However, those priorities are determined with the best interests of 28 nations in mind (or more specifically, the best interests of the majority of those nations). There might, just might, be an occasion or two when those best interests not only do not coincide with your best interests but may also not coincide with those of the UK as a whole. This is where the problems begin. As I have explained before, in more than 80% of instances where the UK has opposed proposals made by the EU, those proposals have been passed nonetheless.
It may well be that on the particular issue of R&D the EU’s decisions suit you best. But experience (and simple arithmetic) shows that in the vast majority of cases the decisions made by the EU will not coincide with the best interests of the UK. Furthermore, as we have discussed before, although you feel you have no influence over matters made in the UK Parliament, you have infinitely less influence over matters made in the EU “Parliament” (as it is quaintly called).
I think if you broadened your horizons away from your particular hobby horse and considered how the best interests, overall, of the UK will be served, you may well decide that the Westminster Parliament is probably more likely to side with the best interests of the UK than is the Brussels/Strasbourg version. Furthermore, you have the opportunity every five years to turf out those whom you believe are not acting in your best interests. By contrast, if you want to do the same to the European Parliament, even disregarding that MEP's have very little power, your wishes will have to coincide not only with the majority of your fellow UK citizens, but also with the majority those of 27 other very disparate nations. Of course, if you consider that the interests of the other 27 nations are of more importance than the interests of the UK, then the EU is obviously the answer.
Could I add to that, NJ, that the interests of Science are not, by any means, paramount.
Jim seems to be unable to think beyond that at the moment, but perhaps, on calm reflection, things will get into perspective. I'm not against you Jim, but scientists (and I've taught with loads) do seem to be rather narrowly focussed. (Physicists especially prone - don't know what your specialism is, Jim, my daughter read Chemistry). Please try to look outside the laboratory at the messy old world we all inhabit. :)
Jim seems to be unable to think beyond that at the moment, but perhaps, on calm reflection, things will get into perspective. I'm not against you Jim, but scientists (and I've taught with loads) do seem to be rather narrowly focussed. (Physicists especially prone - don't know what your specialism is, Jim, my daughter read Chemistry). Please try to look outside the laboratory at the messy old world we all inhabit. :)
Latest Posts
News5 mins ago
ChatterBank8 mins ago
Should There Be Age Limits In Politics?
News13 mins ago
Politics19 mins ago
Film, Media & TV19 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.