Memo to Leave side: When you are reduced to rubbishing Stephen Hawking and 150 other Fellows of the Royal Society, you have not only automatically lost the argument, you are also making it worse by increasing the publicity given to the letter and by looking somewhat off your collective trollies. It is especially bad, verging on disastrous, to attack their integrity. In political terms, it doesn't matter one jot whether the distinguished scientists are right or not. I don't think they are, as it happens, but no-one cares what I think. People will, however think that such people might know something about how scientific research operates
Leave need to stop whingeing and change the subject on to their own territory. At the moment they are like boxers reeling from one blow to another, apparently surprised and hurt to find that the other side are pummelling them. That's not a good look.
Sorry Richard. Appeal to authority. Logical fallacy.
Memo to Leave side: When you are reduced to rubbishing Stephen Hawking and 150 other Fellows of the Royal Society, you have not only automatically lost the argument, you are also making it worse by increasing the publicity given to the letter and by looking somewhat off your collective trollies. It is especially bad, verging on disastrous, to attack their integrity. In political terms, it doesn't matter one jot whether the distinguished scientists are right or not. I don't think they are, as it happens, but no-one cares what I think. People will, however think that such people might know something about how scientific research operates
Leave need to stop whingeing and change the subject on to their own territory. At the moment they are like boxers reeling from one blow to another, apparently surprised and hurt to find that the other side are pummelling them. That's not a good look.
The vast majority of us are not attacking Stephen Hawking's integrity. We're disagreeing with him.
When Stephen Hawking comments on quantum physics, a non-physicist would look a bit of an idiot if he disagreed with him. If Stephen Hawking comments about EU membership or support for the Labour Party, any well-informed person's view is just as valid as his.
This “ambiguity” is unhelpful as it creates uncertainty and puts future investment, growth and jobs at risk."
The EU risking jobs and investment - surely that can't be right. Isn't it the sine qua non of Britain's prosperity?
What does the Astronomer Royal think?
The idea that EU membership is necessarily always a positive thing for UK manufacturing is a myth anyway. A few minutes quick googling came up with these examples since 2010 with almost no effort at all:
2010 Twinings shut their North Tyneside headquarters and move production to Poland - using a £10m EU grant. AVX shut their Paignton electronics factory and move production to the Czech Republic Edwards Technology Gorup shut their Shoreham factory and move production to the Czech Republic.
2011 Cadbury shut their Bristol factory to move production to Poland. Storck end Bendicks mint production in Winchester, moving production to Germany.
2013 Ford cut over 1000 jobs at Southampton and Dagenham moving production to Turkey using an £80 million EU loan to help the move.
2014 Imperial Tobacco shut their Nottingham plant to move production to Poland and Germany Japan Tobacco (B&H) shut their Antrim Factory to move production to Poland and Romania. Smiths Medical closes its Haslingden factory and moves production to the Czech republic.
2016 Texas Instruments announce the closure of their Greenock factory to move production to Germany. Shepton Mallet Cider Mill closes with production being moved to Ireland. Crown Closures shut their Poole factory to move production to Poland.
There are loads more going back to the start of the last decade.
Desperate Stuff. We are massive beneficiaries of inward investment to the EU - not least the car industry. Throw that away and such movements would only get worse. All you are doing is drawing attention to the global nature of manufacturing and investment. As companies invest they would want to invest in a common economic area - and you would have us out of it.
Ford have made large investments as it rationalises its business. Quite a bit in the UK - Bridgend and Dagenham. 360 jobs were lost at Southampton and Ford created 300 with a 475 million investment in Dagenham in 2015.
Imperial Tobacco also closed its factory in France. I do not think we should be surprised that we have no cigarette factories in the UK. The Nottingham plant was working at half capacity and we actively discriminate against smoking. Its producing cigarettes where people are still smoking themselves to death.
Memo to Leave side: When you are reduced to rubbishing Stephen Hawking and 150 other Fellows of the Royal Society, you have not only automatically lost the argument, you are also making it worse by increasing the publicity given to the letter and by looking somewhat off your collective trollies. It is especially bad, verging on disastrous, to attack their integrity. In political terms, it doesn't matter one jot whether the distinguished scientists are right or not. I don't think they are, as it happens, but no-one cares what I think. People will, however think that such people might know something about how scientific research operates
Leave need to stop whingeing and change the subject on to their own territory. At the moment they are like boxers reeling from one blow to another, apparently surprised and hurt to find that the other side are pummelling them. That's not a good look.
The vast majority of us are not attacking Stephen Hawking's integrity. We're disagreeing with him.
When Stephen Hawking comments on quantum physics, a non-physicist would look a bit of an idiot if he disagreed with him. If Stephen Hawking comments about EU membership or support for the Labour Party, any well-informed person's view is just as valid as his.
Sean, surely you don't mean to imply that a well-informed person could support Labour?
Richard you can help me with my entirely anecdotal quest to discover the various merits or otherwise of staying or going.
I have so far looked at financial services (better to stay - we have gone over at length my reasoning); agriculture (for better or worse, UK farmers benefit from EU subsidies, so stay); and entertainment (stay, although many of the eg. intellectual property agreements/patents are global).
The other day you mentioned that you had (owned?) some factories which complain about EU rules even though those factories don't export to or trade with the EU.
What sectors are those factories in?
thanks
First I would say that for agriculture Leave is the far better option. Currently the EU grant rules under CAP are based on farmers having to follow rules which are designed for the EU as a whole rather than tailored to their specific UK based operations. If, as I expect they would, the Government said they would maintain grants at least for now but ensure the conditions were appropriate for UK farming and the environment then British farmers would be far better off outside the EU.
I didn't say that I owned any factories. My business is Geological and Archaeological consultancy and although I have a small sideline business manufacturing models it is not on any scale that barely makes a profit and is not currently impacted one way or another by the EU.
My comment about businesses which are impacted by EU rules but have no export to the EU is based on surveys by the IoD and BCC. Both show the vast majority of businesses in the UK have no trade relationship with the EU. The latest (self selecting so treat with caution) survey from the BCC showed that of the 2060 businesses that responded to the survey, 49% of them did no trade with the EU. Indeed whilst Stuart Rose was still at Business for Britain prior to his jump to BSE, he launched a report along with Lord Wolfsen, CEO of Next, that showed that only 5% of businesses have any trade relationship with the EU.
The rest of us are enjoying pointing out your intellectual shortcomings.
Oh dear. And round we go again...
It has been vastly entertaining trying to follow the tortured logic of the Brexiteers this morning.
Switzerland is outside the EU, and very wealthy, say the Brexiteers
Switzerland has a problem recruiting World class researchers in science, say 150 Fellows of the Royal Society, Stephen Hawking, three Nobel laureates and the Astronomer Royal
If we left the EU, we might have the same recruitment problem as Switzerland, say 150 Fellows of the Royal Society, Stephen Hawking, three Nobel laureates and the Astronomer Royal
Ah, say the Brexiteers, we could solve any recruitment problem because we would be very wealthy, like Switzerland.
Oh, wait...
You're really not capable of independent thinking, are you?
Tell me what happens if the Leavers win the referendum? Because if it's left in Cameron's hands to negotiate the Brexit, he will have won by default as he sabotages the whole negotiation with whats left of the EU.
If leave win David Cameron will head a new unifying cabinet and I would expect Michael Gove would be charged with Brexit negotiations
Indeed. Which is why I think there is no question that our Brexit strategy would be the EEA route.
Yes but as a rare traditionalist Tory on here who for example was delighted by last night's defeat of the government on Sunday trading why do I want to see more and more of this green and pleasant land concreted over to house our burgeoning population esp here in the South East. Net annual migration of 330K people is not sustainable. If I'm to give my vote to Out what's in it for me if migration continues unchecked? Modest immigration might be beneficial but these levels aren't modest.
Why is it not sustainable? It is perfectly sustainable if we take the decisions we need to in order to sustain it. Including concreting over more of our land.
Whether those are palatable to you is a different question.
As for Sunday trading I couldn't disagree more. If I want to go shopping at 9am or 7pm on a Sunday, if a shop is willing to sell to me and if an employee is willing to work then I don't see why it's any of the government's business. We're all adults. Big government is not needed to dictate how we spend our money.
The vast majority of us are not attacking Stephen Hawking's integrity. We're disagreeing with him.
When Stephen Hawking comments on quantum physics, a non-physicist would look a bit of an idiot if he disagreed with him. If Stephen Hawking comments about EU membership or support for the Labour Party, any well-informed person's view is just as valid as his.
The trouble is that (a) it's not just Stephen Hawking, it's a whole lecture-hall full of top scientists, and (b) most people will, quite reasonably, think that top scientists know a thing or two not only about their particular scientific disciplines, but also about how science funding and research projects work. So the letter will be seen as a well-informed view (doesn't necessarily make it right, of course).
As I said, the Leave side needs to change the ground on which the debate is fought. It can't win by spending every day on the defensive trying to argue that experts (or people who will seem like experts) don't know what they are talking about or, even worse, have been nobbled or are dishonest.
Sadly, that logical fallacy is exposed by the current situation in Switzerland, where, according to experts in their field, there is a problem recruiting World class research staff
But enough. Sadly I must depart from the greatest collection of minds ever collected in a single place for a spell.
The bit you gloss over, is they have problems recruiting research staff not due to lack of cash, but due to almost all their academic institutions being fifth rate, not a problem we have on the whole.
Yet when those oh so clever scientists say we should stay in the EU you say they are stupid.
Sadly, that logical fallacy is exposed by the current situation in Switzerland, where, according to experts in their field, there is a problem recruiting World class research staff
But enough. Sadly I must depart from the greatest collection of minds ever collected in a single place for a spell.
The bit you gloss over, is they have problems recruiting research staff not due to lack of cash, but due to almost all their academic institutions being fifth rate, not a problem we have on the whole.
Probably a contender for the most ignorant comment so far.
And their best, the ETH, is the best research university on the continent in pure and applied sciences..
Complaining about unilateral actions and their consequences. That is the pot calling the kettle black.
It really is. She truly is an awful Conservative leader.
She is a truly small-c conservative. Doing everything possible to not rock the boat or make major changes, kicking any can down the road until there is no longer an alternative.
Comparisons made in the past between her and Thatcher could not be further from the truth.
She has endlessly tacked Left in office.
My iPhone auto capitalised that (annoyingly) but I'd be supremely dissatisfied with her if I were a German conservative.
She makes Cameron look like Norman Tebbit in comparison.
She has yes but don't forget she's in a Grand Coalition. Imagine Cameron was in coalition not with Clegg but with Labour.
Though I feel she tacks left due to her own brand of conservativism. She sees it as the path of least resistance.
My understanding is that the judges did indeed hand down sentences which included being deported once the term of incarceration was completed. It is apparently Nick and yourself who are trying to defend the defiance of the rational interpretation of criminal statute law.
I don't think the Mail is suggesting that the law is not being followed, they're just stirring outrage in a nebulous sense. As I understand the position, it's that these people are listed for deportation, but are entitled to appeal against deportation, possibly though not necessarily using the ECHR as one reason for appeal. While this process is pending, they can't yet be deported. The Mail is implying that they ought to be imprisoned while the appeal process is completed, because if they weren't imprisoned they might go underground.
I understand why they think that, but it's not consistent with British jurisprudence to imprison people whose cases are still going through the system because they might attempt to flee or disappear. There are circumstances which might allow that, but there has to be a reason to suspect that flight is planned, rather than merely the fact that they're foreign nationals.
A sensible solution that I'd support would be to hear the appeals against deportation while they were still serving their sentences, so that the position would be clear once they had completed their sentences. I'm not sure why that's not done - perhaps court overload?
EU bureaucracy does not seem to be stifling Ireland's economy...
For the whole of 2015, Ireland’s economy grew by 7.8 per cent compared to 2014.
Manufacturing recorded 14.2 per cent growth in 2015, while building and construction grew 8.8 per cent increase and personal consumption, which accounts for 55 per cent of domestic demand, rose by 3.5 per cent.
@bbclaurak Meanwhile in case you were wondering, Cameron's just told BBC Radio Oxford he will stand again as an MP in 2020 altho he'll stand down as PM
Since
It also leaves open the option of his changing his mind about staying on as Prime Minister, of course...
Look at your examples though. The most recent is Callaghan. I would say that it's fallen out of fashion at least.
Your last point though: Cameron will know this comment will be taken that way. I wonder if he is seriously wavering.
All Prime Ministers need to suffer from the conceit that they have a unique contribution to make. However, when you look at the field on the Conservative side at present and the dynamics of internal party politics, David Cameron would be fully justified in concluding that the party isn't going to make a good choice if he steps down in the near future.
One thing to ponder: what is George Osborne thinking at present? He's no fool and he'll be aware that he's had a poor few months. He might well feel that his interests would be best served by having his best political friend staying in Number 10 indefinitely. If so, you can imagine that he has been twisting David Cameron's arm.
I think that's a good point. Though he's prone to some interesting errors of judgement, I don't think Osborne would make the error of thinking he could become leader without having support at all levels of the parliamentary party locked down. Trying to talk Cameron into sticking around in the hope that conditions will become favourable for a near-coronation is probably his only hope of becoming leader in the foreseeable future.
If (unlikely as it seems) Dan Jarvis was made Labour Leader, Osborne's chances of becoming Leader will be over. In a beauty contest Osborne would lose and his party knows that.
I think Osborne's chances are already close to dead. I think it was TSE that wrote the header about his only chance is if remain win big.
Osborne's disliked by too many of his own party. I suspect he only remains in post whilst Cameron is PM. After that, he's gone.
Osborne has been chancellor/shadow chancellor for almost 11 years now.
I can't see the mass of the parliamentary party voting for more of the same either this year, or in three year's time, and to continue it throughout the 2020s.
'You post on PB: you are an anorak. You will vote In or Leave.'
Yes people on here pretending to have been swayed one way or the other by various news items really are quite tiresome. I do wonder, do they seriously think that these announced 'conversions' are going to impact the result?
I know a couple of people on here have flipped to the other side. TSE was Leave, then Remain and now I think undecided. Philip_Thomson was Remain, now Leave/EFTA-EEA. One could write a whole page about SeanT's position...
I was an ardent Remainer until last summer, then moved to a likely Leave.
After Dave's deal I was a definitive Leaver.
Then my friend who works in the financial services industry and was an ardent outer flipped sides because of the lack of clarity of what Brexit means coupled with a discussion with Alastair pushed me back to a likely Remainer.
I have to confess the continuity IDS wing of the Tory party who are seeing the referendum as a way of ditching Cameron and undo the Cameroon detoxify project are doing their upmost to make me campaign for Remain.
Blimey TSE, you used to be indecisive but now you are not so sure?
The lack of clarity about what happens next is by far my biggest concern about Leave. Whilst I am convinced that the EU is progressing down a path that we do not want to follow and that our membership will become increasingly problematic as a result I do want a clear consensus of what the alternative being offered actually is.
I think this is the problem with peter_from_putney's position. The lack of leadership is making spelling out that alternative and coalescing around it very difficult.
In my view that's not really necessary.
We are going to be ok whichever way we go from an economic perspective.
So we have a two part choice:
A. Ruled by Brussels or B. Independent
if B:
then there is a second discussion on (i) progressive, outward-looking country; or (ii) inward looking, closed border approach
I will fight extremely hard to secure option (i) but I am pretty confident that the majority of Brits are naturally supportive of that way. So - in my view - if we vote for B in the first question, we are almost certain to end up with B(i).
So from a mathematical perspective, where p = probability of any given outcome
Richard you can help me with my entirely anecdotal quest to discover the various merits or otherwise of staying or going.
I have so far looked at financial services (better to stay - we have gone over at length my reasoning); agriculture (for better or worse, UK farmers benefit from EU subsidies, so stay); and entertainment (stay, although many of the eg. intellectual property agreements/patents are global).
The other day you mentioned that you had (owned?) some factories which complain about EU rules even though those factories don't export to or trade with the EU.
What sectors are those factories in?
thanks
First I would say that for agriculture Leave is the far better option. Currently the EU grant rules under CAP are based on farmers having to follow rules which are designed for the EU as a whole rather than tailored to their specific UK based operations. If, as I expect they would, the Government said they would maintain grants at least for now but ensure the conditions were appropriate for UK farming and the environment then British farmers would be far better off outside the EU.
I didn't say that I owned any factories. My business is Geological and Archaeological consultancy and although I have a small sideline business manufacturing models it is not on any scale that barely makes a profit and is not currently impacted one way or another by the EU.
My comment about businesses which are impacted by EU rules but have no export to the EU is based on surveys by the IoD and BCC. Both show the vast majority of businesses in the UK have no trade relationship with the EU. The latest (self selecting so treat with caution) survey from the BCC showed that of the 2060 businesses that responded to the survey, 49% of them did no trade with the EU. Indeed whilst Stuart Rose was still at Business for Britain prior to his jump to BSE, he launched a report along with Lord Wolfsen, CEO of Next, that showed that only 5% of businesses have any trade relationship with the EU.
Ah I see apologies. I wonder, therefore, whether those businesses that responded Leave to the BCC survey which are unaffected by the EU did so for business or personal reasons (nothing wrong with either motive).
I am just trying to get a handle on stay/go as it affects each industry sector.
As for agriculture, it was put to me that the UK govt of whatever stripe was not to be trusted to maintain subsidies (GO in one of his moments of egalitarianism; or Lab in their continuous state of loathing the countryside). As such, the feeling was very strongly to stay within the EU. As I say, rightly or wrongly because I appreciate that subsidies for UK farmers aren't everyone's cup of tea.
Tell me what happens if the Leavers win the referendum? Because if it's left in Cameron's hands to negotiate the Brexit, he will have won by default as he sabotages the whole negotiation with whats left of the EU.
If leave win David Cameron will head a new unifying cabinet and I would expect Michael Gove would be charged with Brexit negotiations
Indeed. Which is why I think there is no question that our Brexit strategy would be the EEA route.
As a matter of interest which route would you take
EEA without any doubt.
I do understand the arguments about migration and as I have said before I think the current policy we run is inherently racist and counter productive for the UK. It allows free movement of EU citizens regardless of their ability to contribute to the UK economy or well being but hinders the ability of highly qualified non EU citizens to come to the UK and contribute to our country.
But I am never going to win an argument that says cut EU migration and increase non EU migration. Both sides would crucify me for entirely different reasons.
So for me I accept that the migration argument is one for which there is no satisfactory answer and as such it doesn't play into my view of what we should do. From the point of view of sovereignty, trade, democracy and national well being I think the EEA route is by far the best.
Memo to Leave side: When you are reduced to rubbishing Stephen Hawking and 150 other Fellows of the Royal Society, you have not only automatically lost the argument, you are also making it worse by increasing the publicity given to the letter and by looking somewhat off your collective trollies. It is especially bad, verging on disastrous, to attack their integrity. In political terms, it doesn't matter one jot whether the distinguished scientists are right or not. I don't think they are, as it happens, but no-one cares what I think. People will, however think that such people might know something about how scientific research operates
Leave need to stop whingeing and change the subject on to their own territory. At the moment they are like boxers reeling from one blow to another, apparently surprised and hurt to find that the other side are pummelling them. That's not a good look.
The vast majority of us are not attacking Stephen Hawking's integrity. We're disagreeing with him.
When Stephen Hawking comments on quantum physics, a non-physicist would look a bit of an idiot if he disagreed with him. If Stephen Hawking comments about EU membership or support for the Labour Party, any well-informed person's view is just as valid as his.
It's similar to when Stephen Fry or Patrick Stewart profess their support for Labour, IMHO.
There's a belief that because the former is very intelligent and the latter a fantastic actor, their endorsement is an effective QED and that's simply the end of the matter.
It might be worth listening to the BBC program I linked to earlier. Here you have someone who found it difficult to upend his family once more to move to the UK. Yet he did, and I doubt anyone here regrets his decision.
If we were outside the EU, the calculation in such eminent scientists' minds might be slightly different, especially if free movement with the EU is challenged.
The rest of us are enjoying pointing out your intellectual shortcomings.
Oh dear. And round we go again...
It has been vastly entertaining trying to follow the tortured logic of the Brexiteers this morning.
Switzerland is outside the EU, and very wealthy, say the Brexiteers
Switzerland has a problem recruiting World class researchers in science, say 150 Fellows of the Royal Society, Stephen Hawking, three Nobel laureates and the Astronomer Royal
If we left the EU, we might have the same recruitment problem as Switzerland, say 150 Fellows of the Royal Society, Stephen Hawking, three Nobel laureates and the Astronomer Royal
Ah, say the Brexiteers, we could solve any recruitment problem because we would be very wealthy, like Switzerland.
Oh, wait...
You're really not capable of independent thinking, are you?
I think we all know the UK would be a basket case if we left the munificent EU.
It's a wonder how the UK not only survived for 1,000 years before we joined but also became the world's first industrialised nation, invited many of the modern technological marvels we take for granted today, built the greatest empire the world has ever seen, spread its language and freedoms across the globe and saved Europe from itself (by itself) on several occasions.
But I am never going to win an argument that says cut EU migration and increase non EU migration. Both sides would crucify me for entirely different reasons.
So for me I accept that the migration argument is one for which there is no satisfactory answer and as such it doesn't play into my view of what we should do. From the point of view of sovereignty, trade, democracy and national well being I think the EEA route is by far the best.
I have few issues with migration personally but think it destroys faith of working class in politics. We need it in our hands just to stop the Trumpism of politics. I also think City of London needs to be outside EEA to avoid single rulebook.
I like the 20-1 Sanders v Trump in Shadsy's market on the eventual 2 prize fighters will end up in the ring.I think Trump is now too big to fire.If GOP tries to take him off the ballot,all hell will let loose.GOP are stuck with him.They are condemned if they do,they are condemned if they don't. There's a possibility as yet unknown that Hillary won't get to the starting stalls and Bernie is now a credible POTUS.Are you feeling it? #FeelTheBern.
Tell me what happens if the Leavers win the referendum? Because if it's left in Cameron's hands to negotiate the Brexit, he will have won by default as he sabotages the whole negotiation with whats left of the EU.
If leave win David Cameron will head a new unifying cabinet and I would expect Michael Gove would be charged with Brexit negotiations
Indeed. Which is why I think there is no question that our Brexit strategy would be the EEA route.
Yes but as a rare traditionalist Tory on here who for example was delighted by last night's defeat of the government on Sunday trading why do I want to see more and more of this green and pleasant land concreted over to house our burgeoning population esp here in the South East. Net annual migration of 330K people is not sustainable. If I'm to give my vote to Out what's in it for me if migration continues unchecked? Modest immigration might be beneficial but these levels aren't modest.
Why is it not sustainable? It is perfectly sustainable if we take the decisions we need to in order to sustain it. Including concreting over more of our land.
Whether those are palatable to you is a different question.
As for Sunday trading I couldn't disagree more. If I want to go shopping at 9am or 7pm on a Sunday, if a shop is willing to sell to me and if an employee is willing to work then I don't see why it's any of the government's business. We're all adults. Big government is not needed to dictate how we spend our money.
Some things are more important than market forces - call me old fashioned but that's how I see it.
Memo to Leave side: When you are reduced to rubbishing Stephen Hawking and 150 other Fellows of the Royal Society, you have not only automatically lost the argument, you are also making it worse by increasing the publicity given to the letter and by looking somewhat off your collective trollies. It is especially bad, verging on disastrous, to attack their integrity. In political terms, it doesn't matter one jot whether the distinguished scientists are right or not. I don't think they are, as it happens, but no-one cares what I think. People will, however think that such people might know something about how scientific research operates
Leave need to stop whingeing and change the subject on to their own territory. At the moment they are like boxers reeling from one blow to another, apparently surprised and hurt to find that the other side are pummelling them. That's not a good look.
The vast majority of us are not attacking Stephen Hawking's integrity. We're disagreeing with him.
When Stephen Hawking comments on quantum physics, a non-physicist would look a bit of an idiot if he disagreed with him. If Stephen Hawking comments about EU membership or support for the Labour Party, any well-informed person's view is just as valid as his.
It's similar to when Stephen Fry or Patrick Stewart profess their support for Labour, IMHO.
There's a belief that because the former is very intelligent and the latter a fantastic actor, their endorsement is an effective QED and that's simply the end of the matter.
Different.
If Stephen Fry said he supports Brexit because the EU mandates RADA to accept 84% non-UK students and if a British actor wants to work in the EU he must fill in 500 forms, then his opinion would be valid because he is an actor and he is knowledgeable about his own industry.
If Stephen Fry supports Brexit because he thinks all Remain supporters are ghastly and ignorant, then that is less valid.
Stehpen Hawking is opining on his own industry as it is affected by the EU = valid opinion.
@bbclaurak Meanwhile in case you were wondering, Cameron's just told BBC Radio Oxford he will stand again as an MP in 2020 altho he'll stand down as PM
Since
It also leaves open the option of his changing his mind about staying on as Prime Minister, of course...
Look at your examples though. The most recent is Callaghan. I would say that it's fallen out of fashion at least.
Your last point though: Cameron will know this comment will be taken that way. I wonder if he is seriously wavering.
All Prime Ministers need to suffer from the conceit that they have a unique contribution to make. However, when you look at the field on the Conservative side at present and the dynamics of internal party politics, David Cameron would be fully justified in concluding that the party isn't going to make a good choice if he steps down in the near future.
One thing to ponder: what is George Osborne thinking at present? He's no fool and he'll be aware that he's had a poor few months. He might well feel that his interests would be best served by having his best political friend staying in Number 10 indefinitely. If so, you can imagine that he has been twisting David Cameron's arm.
I think that's a good point. Though he's prone to some interesting errors of judgement, I don't think Osborne would make the error of thinking he could become leader without having support at all levels of the parliamentary party locked down. Trying to talk Cameron into sticking around in the hope that conditions will become favourable for a near-coronation is probably his only hope of becoming leader in the foreseeable future.
If (unlikely as it seems) Dan Jarvis was made Labour Leader, Osborne's chances of becoming Leader will be over. In a beauty contest Osborne would lose and his party knows that.
I think Osborne's chances are already close to dead. I think it was TSE that wrote the header about his only chance is if remain win big.
Osborne's disliked by too many of his own party. I suspect he only remains in post whilst Cameron is PM. After that, he's gone.
Osborne has been chancellor/shadow chancellor for almost 11 years now.
I can't see the mass of the parliamentary party voting for more of the same either this year, or in three year's time, and to continue it throughout the 2020s.
If I wanted an opinion on physics, I'd choose Stephen Hawking. If I wanted an opinion on the political implications of EU membership, I'd choose Chris Grayling. I'm bemused as to how some people are finding that distinction difficult to grasp.
And Stephen Hawking gave his opinion on the future of physics, not the political implications of EU membership
I'm bemused
Well allow me to attempt to un-bemuse you - it's no problem; I think of it as a public service.
I would expect a scientist to be an expert in their chosen scientific field. That's very very different to having a nuanced and balanced view the policy issues surrounding it. It's the difference between understanding nuclear fusion and knowing what the UK's nuclear policy should be for the next 50 years.
It is very probable that some scientists become very involved in the wider implications of their work - public policy, funding, working with governments, corporate sponsors, and other funding bodies, but they are not scientists in that capacity, and this sort of dual role isn't a given. I would expect and indeed hope that many more are in the main dedicated to their research, so their main concern regarding politics would be where the money to allow them to continue their research is coming from.
Desperate Stuff. We are massive beneficiaries of inward investment to the EU - not least the car industry. Throw that away and such movements would only get worse. All you are doing is drawing attention to the global nature of manufacturing and investment. As companies invest they would want to invest in a common economic area - and you would have us out of it.
Ford have made large investments as it rationalises its business. Quite a bit in the UK - Bridgend and Dagenham. 360 jobs were lost at Southampton and Ford created 300 with a 475 million investment in Dagenham in 2015.
Imperial Tobacco also closed its factory in France. I do not think we should be surprised that we have no cigarette factories in the UK. The Nottingham plant was working at half capacity and we actively discriminate against smoking. Its producing cigarettes where people are still smoking themselves to death.
Not desperate at all. These are workers who lost their jobs because of the ease with which businesses could close UK factories and move production to other countries because we are in the EU. Indeed some of them did it using EU grants.
Your claim that the inward investment is solely due to our membership of the EU is also laughable. Just like all those claims that businesses would leave if we didn't join the Euro.
Your ridiculous attempt to dismiss this shows how poor your arguments really are.
Tell me what happens if the Leavers win the referendum? Because if it's left in Cameron's hands to negotiate the Brexit, he will have won by default as he sabotages the whole negotiation with whats left of the EU.
If leave win David Cameron will head a new unifying cabinet and I would expect Michael Gove would be charged with Brexit negotiations
Indeed. Which is why I think there is no question that our Brexit strategy would be the EEA route.
Yes but as a rare traditionalist Tory on here who for example was delighted by last night's defeat of the government on Sunday trading why do I want to see more and more of this green and pleasant land concreted over to house our burgeoning population esp here in the South East. Net annual migration of 330K people is not sustainable. If I'm to give my vote to Out what's in it for me if migration continues unchecked? Modest immigration might be beneficial but these levels aren't modest.
Why is it not sustainable? It is perfectly sustainable if we take the decisions we need to in order to sustain it. Including concreting over more of our land.
Whether those are palatable to you is a different question.
As for Sunday trading I couldn't disagree more. If I want to go shopping at 9am or 7pm on a Sunday, if a shop is willing to sell to me and if an employee is willing to work then I don't see why it's any of the government's business. We're all adults. Big government is not needed to dictate how we spend our money.
Memo to Leave side: When you are reduced to rubbishing Stephen Hawking and 150 other Fellows of the Royal Society, you have not only automatically lost the argument, you are also making it worse by increasing the publicity given to the letter and by looking somewhat off your collective trollies. It is especially bad, verging on disastrous, to attack their integrity. In political terms, it doesn't matter one jot whether the distinguished scientists are right or not. I don't think they are, as it happens, but no-one cares what I think. People will, however think that such people might know something about how scientific research operates
Leave need to stop whingeing and change the subject on to their own territory. At the moment they are like boxers reeling from one blow to another, apparently surprised and hurt to find that the other side are pummelling them. That's not a good look.
Memo to you - being forced wholly to invent your opposition so you can caricature that invented opposition is little short of schizophrenia.
One person in this thread has made one catty remark about Stephen Hawking. Collective trollies?
'It is very probable that some scientists become very involved in the wider implications of their work - public policy, funding, working with governments, corporate sponsors, and other funding bodies, but they are not scientists in that capacity, and this sort of dual role isn't a given'
Indeed it isn't.
btw there are 1500 fellows of the royal society - what do the other 90% think?
Memo to Leave side: When you are reduced to rubbishing Stephen
Leave need to stop whingeing and change the subject on to their own territory. At the moment they are like boxers reeling from one blow to another, apparently surprised and hurt to find that the other side are pummelling them. That's not a good look.
The vast majority of us are not attacking Stephen Hawking's integrity. We're disagreeing with him.
When Stephen Hawking comments on quantum physics, a non-physicist would look a bit of an idiot if he disagreed with him. If Stephen Hawking comments about EU membership or support for the Labour Party, any well-informed person's view is just as valid as his.
It's similar to when Stephen Fry or Patrick Stewart profess their support for Labour, IMHO.
There's a belief that because the former is very intelligent and the latter a fantastic actor, their endorsement is an effective QED and that's simply the end of the matter.
Different.
If Stephen Fry said he supports Brexit because the EU mandates RADA to accept 84% non-UK students and if a British actor wants to work in the EU he must fill in 500 forms, then his opinion would be valid because he is an actor and he is knowledgeable about his own industry.
If Stephen Fry supports Brexit because he thinks all Remain supporters are ghastly and ignorant, then that is less valid.
Stehpen Hawking is opining on his own industry as it is affected by the EU = valid opinion.
This is quite simply the weakness in both sides arguments.
They are trying to advance one size fits all arguments for Leave Remain.
So if Hawking says that's how it might affect his industry fine. Likewise lots of other people can state how it will affect theirs. As a manufacturer I'd say my industry would be stronger outside the EU.
And that's the nub. The EU affects different people in different ways each will vote for their own interest. Daft claims of it's all or nothing are just that - daft, but that's the level of the argument atm.
Desperate Stuff. We are massive beneficiaries of inward investment to the EU - not least the car industry. Throw that away and such movements would only get worse. All you are doing is drawing attention to the global nature of manufacturing and investment. As companies invest they would want to invest in a common economic area - and you would have us out of it.
Ford have made large investments as it rationalises its business. Quite a bit in the UK - Bridgend and Dagenham. 360 jobs were lost at Southampton and Ford created 300 with a 475 million investment in Dagenham in 2015.
Imperial Tobacco also closed its factory in France. I do not think we should be surprised that we have no cigarette factories in the UK. The Nottingham plant was working at half capacity and we actively discriminate against smoking. Its producing cigarettes where people are still smoking themselves to death.
Not desperate at all. These are workers who lost their jobs because of the ease with which businesses could close UK factories and move production to other countries because we are in the EU. Indeed some of them did it using EU grants.
Your claim that the inward investment is solely due to our membership of the EU is also laughable. Just like all those claims that businesses would leave if we didn't join the Euro.
Your ridiculous attempt to dismiss this shows how poor your arguments really are.
The Southampton transit van closure was the most shocking example of EU damage to UK industry. The EU loaned money to Ford Turkey to create the new factory which was then used to take on the production that was in Southampton.
Sadly, that logical fallacy is exposed by the current situation in Switzerland, where, according to experts in their field, there is a problem recruiting World class research staff
But enough. Sadly I must depart from the greatest collection of minds ever collected in a single place for a spell.
The bit you gloss over, is they have problems recruiting research staff not due to lack of cash, but due to almost all their academic institutions being fifth rate, not a problem we have on the whole.
Probably a contender for the most ignorant comment so far.
And their best, the ETH, is the best research university on the continent in pure and applied sciences..
Reading comprehension not a strong point then ?
due to almost all
Care to name three more ?
ETH Zurich, Univ of Zurich (separate institute from ETH Zurich), Univ of Geneve, ETH Lausanne. Geneva benefits from having CERN on its door.
In fact, the point Leavers should be making is that Switzerland has unbelievably strong research expertise in technology, science and medicine and it is ***outside*** the European Union.
When the Swiss Universities were no longer entitled to apply for EU grants, they sensibly enough just set up their own scheme (so Scott’s original point, mouthing Stephen Hawking, was nonsense).
I like the 20-1 Sanders v Trump in Shadsy's market on the eventual 2 prize fighters will end up in the ring.I think Trump is now too big to fire.If GOP tries to take him off the ballot,all hell will let loose.GOP are stuck with him.They are condemned if they do,they are condemned if they don't. There's a possibility as yet unknown that Hillary won't get to the starting stalls and Bernie is now a credible POTUS.Are you feeling it? #FeelTheBern.
Bernie needs to beat this lot in aggregate next Tuesday to level it up:
Sadly, that logical fallacy is exposed by the current situation in Switzerland, where, according to experts in their field, there is a problem recruiting World class research staff
But enough. Sadly I must depart from the greatest collection of minds ever collected in a single place for a spell.
The bit you gloss over, is they have problems recruiting research staff not due to lack of cash, but due to almost all their academic institutions being fifth rate, not a problem we have on the whole.
Probably a contender for the most ignorant comment so far.
And their best, the ETH, is the best research university on the continent in pure and applied sciences..
Reading comprehension not a strong point then ?
due to almost all
Care to name three more ?
? How big is Switzerland? I'll tell you 8 million. (20% immigrant. Indeed first and second generation immigrants now make up more than a third of Switzerland's inhabitants over the age of 15) How many world class universities do you expect it to have.
My understanding is that the judges did indeed hand down sentences which included being deported once the term of incarceration was completed. It is apparently Nick and yourself who are trying to defend the defiance of the rational interpretation of criminal statute law.
I understand why they think that, but it's not consistent with British jurisprudence to imprison people whose cases are still going through the system because they might attempt to flee or disappear. There are circumstances which might allow that, but there has to be a reason to suspect that flight is planned, rather than merely the fact that they're foreign nationals.
Actually that is entirely wrong. It is very much the case that we will hold people on remand if we believe they are a flight risk. There are a number of factors that go towards holding someone on remand including if they are considered to be likely to miss their court hearing and have previously committed a serious crime.
Desperate Stuff. We are massive beneficiaries of inward investment to the EU - not least the car industry. Throw that away and such movements would only get worse. All you are doing is drawing attention to the global nature of manufacturing and investment. As companies invest they would want to invest in a common economic area - and you would have us out of it.
Ford have made large investments as it rationalises its business. Quite a bit in the UK - Bridgend and Dagenham. 360 jobs were lost at Southampton and Ford created 300 with a 475 million investment in Dagenham in 2015.
Imperial Tobacco also closed its factory in France. I do not think we should be surprised that we have no cigarette factories in the UK. The Nottingham plant was working at half capacity and we actively discriminate against smoking. Its producing cigarettes where people are still smoking themselves to death.
Not desperate at all. These are workers who lost their jobs because of the ease with which businesses could close UK factories and move production to other countries because we are in the EU. Indeed some of them did it using EU grants.
Your claim that the inward investment is solely due to our membership of the EU is also laughable. Just like all those claims that businesses would leave if we didn't join the Euro.
Your ridiculous attempt to dismiss this shows how poor your arguments really are.
The Southampton transit van closure was the most shocking example of EU damage to UK industry. The EU loaned money to Ford Turkey to create the new factory which was then used to take on the production that was in Southampton.
Memo to Leave side: When you are reduced to rubbishing Stephen Hawking and 150 other Fellows of the Royal Society, you have not only automatically lost the argument, you are also making it worse by increasing the publicity given to the letter and by looking somewhat off your collective trollies. It is especially bad, verging on disastrous, to attack their integrity. In political terms, it doesn't matter one jot whether the distinguished scientists are right or not. I don't think they are, as it happens, but no-one cares what I think. People will, however think that such people might know something about how scientific research operates
Leave need to stop whingeing and change the subject on to their own territory. At the moment they are like boxers reeling from one blow to another, apparently surprised and hurt to find that the other side are pummelling them. That's not a good look.
The vast majority of us are not attacking Stephen Hawking's integrity. We're disagreeing with him.
When Stephen Hawking comments on quantum physics, a non-physicist would look a bit of an idiot if he disagreed with him. If Stephen Hawking comments about EU membership or support for the Labour Party, any well-informed person's view is just as valid as his.
It's similar to when Stephen Fry or Patrick Stewart profess their support for Labour, IMHO.
There's a belief that because the former is very intelligent and the latter a fantastic actor, their endorsement is an effective QED and that's simply the end of the matter.
Different.
If Stephen Fry said he supports Brexit because the EU mandates RADA to accept 84% non-UK students and if a British actor wants to work in the EU he must fill in 500 forms, then his opinion would be valid because he is an actor and he is knowledgeable about his own industry.
If Stephen Fry supports Brexit because he thinks all Remain supporters are ghastly and ignorant, then that is less valid.
Stehpen Hawking is opining on his own industry as it is affected by the EU = valid opinion.
Except the reasons he gives are so clearly wrong and politically motivated that he losses any credibility. As I say he gave similar reasons for wanting a Milband PM but I am sure the Tories on here would have some dispute with him about the validity of that view.
Memo to Leave side: When you are reduced to rubbishing Stephen Hawking and 150 other Fellows of the Royal Society, you have not only automatically lost the argument, you are also making it worse by increasing the publicity given to the letter and by looking somewhat off your collective trollies. It is especially bad, verging on disastrous, to attack their integrity. In political terms, it doesn't matter one jot whether the distinguished scientists are right or not. I don't think they are, as it happens, but no-one cares what I think. People will, however think that such people might know something about how scientific research operates
Leave need to stop whingeing and change the subject on to their own territory. At the moment they are like boxers reeling from one blow to another, apparently surprised and hurt to find that the other side are pummelling them. That's not a good look.
The vast majority of us are not attacking Stephen Hawking's integrity. We're disagreeing with him.
When Stephen Hawking comments on quantum physics, a non-physicist would look a bit of an idiot if he disagreed with him. If Stephen Hawking comments about EU membership or support for the Labour Party, any well-informed person's view is just as valid as his.
It's similar to when Stephen Fry or Patrick Stewart profess their support for Labour, IMHO.
There's a belief that because the former is very intelligent and the latter a fantastic actor, their endorsement is an effective QED and that's simply the end of the matter.
Different.
If Stephen Fry said he supports Brexit because the EU mandates RADA to accept 84% non-UK students and if a British actor wants to work in the EU he must fill in 500 forms, then his opinion would be valid because he is an actor and he is knowledgeable about his own industry.
If Stephen Fry supports Brexit because he thinks all Remain supporters are ghastly and ignorant, then that is less valid.
Stehpen Hawking is opining on his own industry as it is affected by the EU = valid opinion.
You focus entirely on the messenger and not at all on the content of the message. To my knowledge most in 'Leave' are advocating a points-based immigration system. I cannot see how this would not cover a talented scientist (Switzerland's disastrous problems with their clearly collapsing pharma industry notwithstanding). Its advocates even argue that it would be even better for attracting talented scientists from outside the EU (which I assume Hawking has nothing against?). We've also seen figures in this thread indicating the tiny percentage of scientific research in this country that is funded by the EU.
Memo to Leave side: When you are reduced to rubbishing Stephen Hawking and 150 other Fellows of the Royal Society, you have not only automatically lost the argument, you are also making it worse by increasing the publicity given to the letter and by looking somewhat off your collective trollies. It is especially bad, verging on disastrous, to attack their integrity. In political terms, it doesn't matter one jot whether the distinguished scientists are right or not. I don't think they are, as it happens, but no-one cares what I think. People will, however think that such people might know something about how scientific research operates
Leave need to stop whingeing and change the subject on to their own territory. At the moment they are like boxers reeling from one blow to another, apparently surprised and hurt to find that the other side are pummelling them. That's not a good look.
Memo to you - being forced wholly to invent your opposition so you can caricature that invented opposition is little short of schizophrenia.
One person in this thread has made one catty remark about Stephen Hawking. Collective trollies?
And when you weigh arguments by who makes them rather than the substance of the arguments, you have lost.
Scientists above all should hold that true. Without it, the world would have believed Einstein and we wouldn't have quantum mechanics, or mathematics would be stuck in Hilbert's finitism.
Sadly, that logical fallacy is exposed by the current situation in Switzerland, where, according to experts in their field, there is a problem recruiting World class research staff
But enough. Sadly I must depart from the greatest collection of minds ever collected in a single place for a spell.
The bit you gloss over, is they have problems recruiting research staff not due to lack of cash, but due to almost all their academic institutions being fifth rate, not a problem we have on the whole.
Probably a contender for the most ignorant comment so far.
And their best, the ETH, is the best research university on the continent in pure and applied sciences..
Reading comprehension not a strong point then ?
due to almost all
Care to name three more ?
? How big is Switzerland? I'll tell you 8 million. (20% immigrant. Indeed first and second generation immigrants now make up more than a third of Switzerland's inhabitants over the age of 15) How many world class universities do you expect it to have.
I believe it has two, who I dare say don't have a problem getting research scientists, the rest are pretty mediocre and do. Switzerland's ability to get research scientists is to do with the quality of their institutions, the two good ones will be fine, the others won't. I expect the same applies in any other country. It has nothing to do with the EU or money. If it was to do with money as claimed the gulf states would be dripping in high powered universities and dripping in research scientists.
What the EU has done with regard to research money is interesting.
When the UK dispenses grant money, it tends to spread it around pretty evenly. So, following Blackadder, the three great universities of Oxford, Cambridge and Hull all got some grant money.
What the EU has done is ruthlessly concentrate the grant money at elite institutes. So, now Cambridge gets truly tonnes of grant money, it is probably the largest single beneficiary in the EU of the grant program.
Hull gets a little tiny bit, and universities in the former Eastern Europe or Portugal or Ireland get even less. The EU has produced a few lottery winners, but many. many more losers.
Given that Cambridge University is such a remarkable beneficiary of EU largesse, it is not too surprising that Hawking and co are so keen on it.
The rest of us are enjoying pointing out your intellectual shortcomings.
Oh dear. And round we go again...
It has been vastly entertaining trying to follow the tortured logic of the Brexiteers this morning.
Switzerland is outside the EU, and very wealthy, say the Brexiteers
Switzerland has a problem recruiting World class researchers in science, say 150 Fellows of the Royal Society, Stephen Hawking, three Nobel laureates and the Astronomer Royal
If we left the EU, we might have the same recruitment problem as Switzerland, say 150 Fellows of the Royal Society, Stephen Hawking, three Nobel laureates and the Astronomer Royal
Ah, say the Brexiteers, we could solve any recruitment problem because we would be very wealthy, like Switzerland.
Oh, wait...
You're really not capable of independent thinking, are you?
I think we all know the UK would be a basket case if we left the munificent EU.
It's a wonder how the UK not only survived for 1,000 years before we joined but also became the world's first industrialised nation, invited many of the modern technological marvels we take for granted today, built the greatest empire the world has ever seen, spread its language and freedoms across the globe and saved Europe from itself (by itself) on several occasions.
Name one of those occasions, please.
Historical note: the UK goes back to 1603. England indeed was created by foreign conquest.
Mind you, if I had your prejudices, I'd prefer fantasy to reality, too
'Except the reasons he gives are so clearly wrong and politically motivated that he losses any credibility'
Yes the funding argument is bogus given the small scale of EU science funding and the fact that we are a net budget contributor, and the freedom of movement argument is bogus as well, given that no-one is suggesting limiting the free movement of talented scientists.
I'm sure he knows this is as well. He's a wily character.
'It is very probable that some scientists become very involved in the wider implications of their work - public policy, funding, working with governments, corporate sponsors, and other funding bodies, but they are not scientists in that capacity, and this sort of dual role isn't a given'
Indeed it isn't.
btw there are 1500 fellows of the royal society - what do the other 90% think?
And is the individual in question soon to be suspended for politicising his office?
Let's put the immigration argument to bed once and for all, in or out of the EU we could control it if we wanted to. We could control it now if we wanted to and after 23/6 regardless of the outcome we can.
If Stephen Fry said he supports Brexit because the EU mandates RADA to accept 84% non-UK students and if a British actor wants to work in the EU he must fill in 500 forms, then his opinion would be valid because he is an actor and he is knowledgeable about his own industry.
If Stephen Fry supports Brexit because he thinks all Remain supporters are ghastly and ignorant, then that is less valid.
Stehpen Hawking is opining on his own industry as it is affected by the EU = valid opinion.
You focus entirely on the messenger and not at all on the content of the message. To my knowledge most in 'Leave' are advocating a points-based immigration system. I cannot see how this would not cover a talented scientist (Switzerland's disastrous problems with their clearly collapsing pharma industry notwithstanding). Its advocates even argue that it would be even better for attracting talented scientists from outside the EU (which I assume Hawking has nothing against?). We've also seen figures in this thread indicating the tiny percentage of scientific research in this country that is funded by the EU.
Indeed, Topping's evaluation ignores the bias of self-interest.
20-1 is a fair value bet according to Betfair's odds. 11% implied value over f.v.
I wonder if the Trump and Sanders eventualities are completely independent, though? It could be that indications of Trump getting RepNom are emboldening left-wing Democrats to vote Sanders, on the basis that they think Trump is entirely unelectable.
If there is any such effect, that would make the bet more attractive.
One or two posters have brought up agriculture this morning. I'd say farmers are as split down the middle as most other groups. EU restrictions on pesticides for example are highly annoying . On the other hand not being able to sell tariff free to other EU countries will cause a problem in some sectors . Kent farmers marginally broke for exit in a straw poll but by and large the larger agri-businesses will favour in because they have the resources to deal with red tape and benefit most from subsidies.
What the EU has done with regard to research money is interesting.
When the UK dispenses grant money, it tends to spread it around pretty evenly. So, following Blackadder, the three great universities of Oxford, Cambridge and Hull all got some grant money.
What the EU has done is ruthlessly concentrate the grant money at elite institutes. So, now Cambridge gets truly tonnes of grant money, it is probably the largest single beneficiary in the EU of the grant program.
Hull gets a little tiny bit, and universities in the former Eastern Europe or Portugal or Ireland get even less. The EU has produced a few lottery winners, but many. many more losers.
Given that Cambridge University is such a remarkable beneficiary of EU largesse, it is not too surprising that Hawking and co are so keen on it.
I'd be interested in seeing figures for that - might be useful to someone I know.
The rest of us are enjoying pointing out your intellectual shortcomings.
Oh dear. And round we go again...
It has been vastly entertaining trying to follow the tortured logic of the Brexiteers this morning.
Switzerland is outside the EU, and very wealthy, say the Brexiteers
Switzerland has a problem recruiting World class researchers in science, say 150 Fellows of the Royal Society, Stephen Hawking, three Nobel laureates and the Astronomer Royal
If we left the EU, we might have the same recruitment problem as Switzerland, say 150 Fellows of the Royal Society, Stephen Hawking, three Nobel laureates and the Astronomer Royal
Ah, say the Brexiteers, we could solve any recruitment problem because we would be very wealthy, like Switzerland.
Oh, wait...
You're really not capable of independent thinking, are you?
I think we all know the UK would be a basket case if we left the munificent EU.
It's a wonder how the UK not only survived for 1,000 years before we joined but also became the world's first industrialised nation, invited many of the modern technological marvels we take for granted today, built the greatest empire the world has ever seen, spread its language and freedoms across the globe and saved Europe from itself (by itself) on several occasions.
Name one of those occasions, please.
Historical note: the UK goes back to 1603. England indeed was created by foreign conquest.
Mind you, if I had your prejudices, I'd prefer fantasy to reality, too
1707, although we apparently weren't called the UK until 1801.
20-1 is a fair value bet according to Betfair's odds. 11% implied value over f.v.
I wonder if the Trump and Sanders eventualities are completely independent, though? It could be that indications of Trump getting RepNom are emboldening left-wing Democrats to vote Sanders, on the basis that they think Trump is entirely unelectable.
If there is any such effect, that would make the bet more attractive.
It'll be clearer after next Tuesday as to whether this bet was "value" or not
On the top scientists against Brexit...lets remember they screamed and shouted about UK making only modest changes to immigration rules. They made all sorts of absurd claims that world leading academics wouldn't be able to come and work in the UK, which was of course total nonsense. I remember CH4 news trying it on was a sob story of a guy who claimed he had to go to America in the end and it fell apart really quickly.
The reality is that the current funding models mean that a lot of money comes from EU wide funds and like many other things a leave vote would change that. Again, the UK could pump just as much money in, but they might not. I can understand academics at top institutions who do very well out of the EU wide funds not wanting any change.
The rest of us are enjoying pointing out your intellectual shortcomings.
Oh dear. And round we go again...
It has been vastly entertaining trying to follow the tortured logic of the Brexiteers this morning.
Switzerland is outside the EU, and very wealthy, say the Brexiteers
Switzerland has a problem recruiting World class researchers in science, say 150 Fellows of the Royal Society, Stephen Hawking, three Nobel laureates and the Astronomer Royal
If we left the EU, we might have the same recruitment problem as Switzerland, say 150 Fellows of the Royal Society, Stephen Hawking, three Nobel laureates and the Astronomer Royal
Ah, say the Brexiteers, we could solve any recruitment problem because we would be very wealthy, like Switzerland.
Oh, wait...
You're really not capable of independent thinking, are you?
I think we all know the UK would be a basket case if we left the munificent EU.
It's a wonder how the UK not only survived for 1,000 years before we joined but also became the world's first industrialised nation, invited many of the modern technological marvels we take for granted today, built the greatest empire the world has ever seen, spread its language and freedoms across the globe and saved Europe from itself (by itself) on several occasions.
Name one of those occasions, please.
Historical note: the UK goes back to 1603. England indeed was created by foreign conquest.
Mind you, if I had your prejudices, I'd prefer fantasy to reality, too
1707, although we apparently weren't called the UK until 1801.
Quite so. My thanks. I had confused the union of crowns with that of thrones
EU bureaucracy does not seem to be stifling Ireland's economy...
For the whole of 2015, Ireland’s economy grew by 7.8 per cent compared to 2014.
Manufacturing recorded 14.2 per cent growth in 2015, while building and construction grew 8.8 per cent increase and personal consumption, which accounts for 55 per cent of domestic demand, rose by 3.5 per cent.
(from FT)
Lucky for them that they are so closely linked to the UK.
If Stephen Fry said he supports Brexit because the EU mandates RADA to accept 84% non-UK students and if a British actor wants to work in the EU he must fill in 500 forms, then his opinion would be valid because he is an actor and he is knowledgeable about his own industry.
If Stephen Fry supports Brexit because he thinks all Remain supporters are ghastly and ignorant, then that is less valid.
Stehpen Hawking is opining on his own industry as it is affected by the EU = valid opinion.
You focus entirely on the messenger and not at all on the content of the message. To my knowledge most in 'Leave' are advocating a points-based immigration system. I cannot see how this would not cover a talented scientist (Switzerland's disastrous problems with their clearly collapsing pharma industry notwithstanding). Its advocates even argue that it would be even better for attracting talented scientists from outside the EU (which I assume Hawking has nothing against?). We've also seen figures in this thread indicating the tiny percentage of scientific research in this country that is funded by the EU.
Indeed, Topping's evaluation ignores the bias of self-interest.
I don't mind self interest if it is as a scientist who has assessed what is good for scientists.
Are all 150 of them likewise narrowly (Cantab-focused) self-interested?
20-1 is a fair value bet according to Betfair's odds. 11% implied value over f.v.
I wonder if the Trump and Sanders eventualities are completely independent, though? It could be that indications of Trump getting RepNom are emboldening left-wing Democrats to vote Sanders, on the basis that they think Trump is entirely unelectable.
If there is any such effect, that would make the bet more attractive.
Or, wwc turning out for Trump means they aren't turning out for Sanders; or that they are more politically engaged and more are voting one or the other. Several possibilities, limited data.
You have to laugh sometimes at the Leave posters on here . If a famous personage comes out in favour of Brexit , they are principled people putting the interests of the UK first and ( of course ) any reasons they have given are expertly put and correct . If a famous personage comes out in favour of staying in the EU , they are unprincipled / putting their own interests first / socialists / mistaken / have no experience of politics and/or economics / have been got at by Cameron etc etc .
On the top scientists against Brexit...lets remember they screamed and shouted about UK making only modest changes to immigration rules. They made all sorts of absurd claims that world leading academics wouldn't be able to come and work in the UK, which was of course total nonsense. I remember CH4 news trying it on was a sob story of a guy who claimed he had to go to America in the end and it fell apart really quickly.
The reality is that the current funding models mean that a lot of money comes from EU wide funds and like many other things a leave vote would change that. Again, the UK could pump just as much money in, but they might not. I can understand academics at top institutions who do very well out of the EU wide funds not wanting any change.
Same with agriculture - British politicians would have competing demands and who knows if funding would stay the same after Brexit in these sectors. On balance I just about think we are better off taking control of our destiny but it's a close call and I may change my mind by June 23rd!
Or, wwc turning out for Trump means they aren't turning out for Sanders; or that they are more politically engaged and more are voting one or the other. Several possibilities, limited data.
I agree that we only have limited data, but in Michigan (open primary) they seem to have turned out for Sanders in big numbers. Note that your second possibility would also tend to make the combined bet better value than treating the eventualities as independent.
@bbclaurak Meanwhile in case you were wondering, Cameron's just told BBC Radio Oxford he will stand again as an MP in 2020 altho he'll stand down as PM
Since
It also leaves open the option of his changing his mind about staying on as Prime Minister, of course...
Look at your examples though. The most recent is Callaghan. I would say that it's fallen out of fashion at least.
Your last point though: Cameron will know this comment will be taken that way. I wonder if he is seriously wavering.
One thing to ponder: what is George Osborne thinking at present? He's no fool and he'll be aware that he's had a poor few months. He might well feel that his interests would be best served by having his best political friend staying in Number 10 indefinitely. If so, you can imagine that he has been twisting David Cameron's arm.
I think that's a good point. Though he's prone to some interesting errors of judgement, I don't think Osborne would make the error of thinking he could become leader without having support at all levels of the parliamentary party locked down. Trying to talk Cameron into sticking around in the hope that conditions will become favourable for a near-coronation is probably his only hope of becoming leader in the foreseeable future.
If (unlikely as it seems) Dan Jarvis was made Labour Leader, Osborne's chances of becoming Leader will be over. In a beauty contest Osborne would lose and his party knows that.
I think Osborne's chances are already close to dead. I think it was TSE that wrote the header about his only chance is if remain win big.
Osborne's disliked by too many of his own party. I suspect he only remains in post whilst Cameron is PM. After that, he's gone.
Osborne has been chancellor/shadow chancellor for almost 11 years now.
I can't see the mass of the parliamentary party voting for more of the same either this year, or in three year's time, and to continue it throughout the 2020s.
It'll be time for a change.
I agree Casino - Osborne has completely burnt his boats with two mega blundering errors - attempting to scrap tax credits last year and attempting to scrap pension tax breaks this year, both of which he has had to unceremoniously abandon. In my book he's totally finished as a result and must surely be moved or sacked altogether.
On the top scientists against Brexit...lets remember they screamed and shouted about UK making only modest changes to immigration rules. They made all sorts of absurd claims that world leading academics wouldn't be able to come and work in the UK, which was of course total nonsense. I remember CH4 news trying it on was a sob story of a guy who claimed he had to go to America in the end and it fell apart really quickly.
The reality is that the current funding models mean that a lot of money comes from EU wide funds and like many other things a leave vote would change that. Again, the UK could pump just as much money in, but they might not. I can understand academics at top institutions who do very well out of the EU wide funds not wanting any change.
Same with agriculture - British politicians would have competing demands and who knows if funding would stay the same after Brexit in these sectors. On balance I just about think we are better off taking control of our destiny but it's a close call and I may change my mind by June 23rd!
@bbclaurak Meanwhile in case you were wondering, Cameron's just told BBC Radio Oxford he will stand again as an MP in 2020 altho he'll stand down as PM
Since
It also leaves open the option of his changing his mind about staying on as Prime Minister, of course...
Look at your examples though. The most recent is Callaghan. I would say that it's fallen out of fashion at least.
Your last point though: Cameron will know this comment will be taken that way. I wonder if he is seriously wavering.
One thing to ponder: what is George Osborne thinking at present? He's no fool and he'll be aware that he's had a poor few months. He might well feel that his interests would be best served by having his best political friend staying in Number 10 indefinitely. If so, you can imagine that he has been twisting David Cameron's arm.
I think that's a good point. Though he's prone to some interesting errors of judgement, I don't think Osborne would make the error of thinking he could become leader without having support at all levels of the parliamentary party locked down. Trying to talk Cameron into sticking around in the hope that conditions will become favourable for a near-coronation is probably his only hope of becoming leader in the foreseeable future.
If (unlikely as it seems) Dan Jarvis was made Labour Leader, Osborne's chances of becoming Leader will be over. In a beauty contest Osborne would lose and his party knows that.
I think Osborne's chances are already close to dead. I think it was TSE that wrote the header about his only chance is if remain win big.
Osborne's disliked by too many of his own party. I suspect he only remains in post whilst Cameron is PM. After that, he's gone.
Osborne has been chancellor/shadow chancellor for almost 11 years now.
I can't see the mass of the parliamentary party voting for more of the same either this year, or in three year's time, and to continue it throughout the 2020s.
It'll be time for a change.
I agree Casino - Osborne has completely burnt his boats with two mega blundering errors - attempting to scrap tax credits last year and attempting to scrap pension tax breaks this year, both of which he has had to unceremoniously abandon. In my book he's totally finished as a result and must surely be moved or sacked altogether.
I'm not convinced Cameron has the guts to do such a thing.
One or two posters have brought up agriculture this morning. I'd say farmers are as split down the middle as most other groups. EU restrictions on pesticides for example are highly annoying . On the other hand not being able to sell tariff free to other EU countries will cause a problem in some sectors . Kent farmers marginally broke for exit in a straw poll but by and large the larger agri-businesses will favour in because they have the resources to deal with red tape and benefit most from subsidies.
There are more small farmers than larger agri-businesses presumably. And of course 'subsidies' is just the EU giving back a third of the money we pay it.
One or two posters have brought up agriculture this morning. I'd say farmers are as split down the middle as most other groups. EU restrictions on pesticides for example are highly annoying . On the other hand not being able to sell tariff free to other EU countries will cause a problem in some sectors . Kent farmers marginally broke for exit in a straw poll but by and large the larger agri-businesses will favour in because they have the resources to deal with red tape and benefit most from subsidies.
There are more small farmers than larger agri-businesses presumably. And of course 'subsidies' is just the EU giving back a third of the money we pay it.
Tax credits are the same wheeze...but try removing those from people...
Let's put the immigration argument to bed once and for all, in or out of the EU we could control it if we wanted to. We could control it now if we wanted to and after 23/6 regardless of the outcome we can.
Tell me what happens if the Leavers win the referendum? Because if it's left in Cameron's hands to negotiate the Brexit, he will have won by default as he sabotages the whole negotiation with whats left of the EU.
If leave win David Cameron will head a new unifying cabinet and I would expect Michael Gove would be charged with Brexit negotiations
What I would really like to hear, from a betting perspective, is the extent to which and in which direction (if any) PBers and their close circle of friends and/or family have switched sides between REMAIN and LEAVE or not as the case may be. A thread dedicated specifically to just such a purpose with perhaps 200-300 PBers contributing, or alternatively in a poll format if that could be arranged, would provide an interesting insight into how opinion may be shifting.
You have to laugh sometimes at the Leave posters on here . If a famous personage comes out in favour of Brexit , they are principled people putting the interests of the UK first and ( of course ) any reasons they have given are expertly put and correct . If a famous personage comes out in favour of staying in the EU , they are unprincipled / putting their own interests first / socialists / mistaken / have no experience of politics and/or economics / have been got at by Cameron etc etc .
There's a lot of that crap on here. Of course, this is completely normal in politics. But why on here? Either people are using this tiny place to propagandise or practise propagandising, or else they actually believe their propaganda. Which doesn't make for much that's of interest regarding the betting market.
PS The solidus ("/") almost always makes for bad writing.
You have to laugh sometimes at the Leave posters on here . If a famous personage comes out in favour of Brexit , they are principled people putting the interests of the UK first and ( of course ) any reasons they have given are expertly put and correct . If a famous personage comes out in favour of staying in the EU , they are unprincipled / putting their own interests first / socialists / mistaken / have no experience of politics and/or economics / have been got at by Cameron etc etc .
There's a lot of that crap on here. Of course, special pleading is completely normal in politics. Take the brief and argue for it. But why on here? Either people are using this tiny place to propagandise or practise propagandising, or else they actually believe their propaganda. Which doesn't make for much that's of interest regarding the betting market.
PS The solidus ("/") almost always makes for bad writing.
@bbclaurak Meanwhile in case you were wondering, Cameron's just told BBC Radio Oxford he will stand again as an MP in 2020 altho he'll stand down as PM
Since the Second World War, five Prime Ministers have elected to stay in the House of Commons at a general election after duty required them to - Churchill, Douglas-Home, Heath, Wilson and Callaghan. It's not that unusual a decision.
It also leaves open the option of his changing his mind about staying on as Prime Minister, of course...
Look at your examples though. The most recent is Callaghan. I would say that it's fallen out of fashion at least.
Your last point though: Cameron will know this comment will be taken that way. I wonder if he is seriously wavering.
There is no clear pattern really. Macmillan, Eden, Attlee and Baldwin stood down . Lloyd George , Asquith and Balfour carried on - as did Macdonald.
Your second paragraph outlines why I'll probably vote leave, albeit reluctantly. It's got nothing to do with the lamentable leave campaign.
This stems from the basic situation that different groups of people on both sides want to leave/remain for different reasons, and hence want different outcomes.
Some people on leave (the far left) want out of the EU because it's a corporatist undemocratic institution dominated by lobbyists and other enemies of the people. Traditionalist of all political views want to leave the EU because of sovereignty concerns. Free trade libertarians like Messrs RCS1000, Tyndall and myself want out so we can trade freely with the largest market and make our own deals. People further to the right, and those that have been left behind by the modern world want to leave the EU to restrict immigration. All of these have different solutions.
Different groups of people want to stay for different reasons as well, and ultimately probably have differing long term objectives, but ultimately if you are a remainer there is only one way to achieve this which is to stay with the program and make the best fist of it you can.
But it isn't worth Leave debating this for two reasons. Firstly their opponents would like nothing better than them getting into a navel gazing bout of fratricide over exactly where they are going, the whole PFJ/JPF over who leads the out campaign was unedifying enough without starting a second round.
The other reason is quite frankly it doesnt matter want Leave think, Cameron or his successor will be the one that does the deal, which means it will be some sort of EEA/EFTA fudge. Leave could campaign for this, or a full kipper out and go it along, makes no difference. However it is not the job of the wrecking ball to get planning permission for the new buildings to follow.
What proportion of the electorate do you think cares a toss about infighting in either camp? The campaigns aren't political parties with manifestos. It's of little importance whether they're divided or not. Remain has got a visible and recognisable leader - David Cameron. Will Leave get one? Few care about EEA or EFTA or even know what those organisations are.
I like the 20-1 Sanders v Trump in Shadsy's market on the eventual 2 prize fighters will end up in the ring.I think Trump is now too big to fire.If GOP tries to take him off the ballot,all hell will let loose.GOP are stuck with him.They are condemned if they do,they are condemned if they don't. There's a possibility as yet unknown that Hillary won't get to the starting stalls and Bernie is now a credible POTUS.Are you feeling it? #FeelTheBern.
EU bureaucracy does not seem to be stifling Ireland's economy...
Hardly a shock, Ireland receives several billion euros a year FROM the EU, we pay more than 10 billion euros TO the EU.
In 2014 Ireland received just a net benefit of €777 Million. Hardly several billion. Full Fact website says ''in 2015 the UK government paid £13 billion to the EU budget, and EU spending on the UK was £4.5 billion. So the UK’s ‘net contribution’ was estimated at about £8.5 billion.''
In other words the UK pays less, not more, than 10 billion and Ireland pays a lot less than several billion
EU bureaucracy does not seem to be stifling Ireland's economy...
Hardly a shock, Ireland receives several billion euros a year FROM the EU, we pay more than 10 billion euros TO the EU.
In 2014 Ireland received just a net benefit of €777 Million. Hardly several billion. Full Fact website says ''in 2015 the UK government paid £13 billion to the EU budget, and EU spending on the UK was £4.5 billion. So the UK’s ‘net contribution’ was estimated at about £8.5 billion.''
In other words the UK pays less, not more, than 10 billion and Ireland pays a lot less than several billion
Full fact is wrong. It cannot possibly know those numbers yet as we won't have the full figures until October in the Pink Book.
Comments
When Stephen Hawking comments on quantum physics, a non-physicist would look a bit of an idiot if he disagreed with him. If Stephen Hawking comments about EU membership or support for the Labour Party, any well-informed person's view is just as valid as his.
We are massive beneficiaries of inward investment to the EU - not least the car industry.
Throw that away and such movements would only get worse. All you are doing is drawing attention to the global nature of manufacturing and investment. As companies invest they would want to invest in a common economic area - and you would have us out of it.
Ford have made large investments as it rationalises its business. Quite a bit in the UK - Bridgend and Dagenham. 360 jobs were lost at Southampton and Ford created 300 with a 475 million investment in Dagenham in 2015.
Imperial Tobacco also closed its factory in France. I do not think we should be surprised that we have no cigarette factories in the UK. The Nottingham plant was working at half capacity and we actively discriminate against smoking. Its producing cigarettes where people are still smoking themselves to death.
I didn't say that I owned any factories. My business is Geological and Archaeological consultancy and although I have a small sideline business manufacturing models it is not on any scale that barely makes a profit and is not currently impacted one way or another by the EU.
My comment about businesses which are impacted by EU rules but have no export to the EU is based on surveys by the IoD and BCC. Both show the vast majority of businesses in the UK have no trade relationship with the EU. The latest (self selecting so treat with caution) survey from the BCC showed that of the 2060 businesses that responded to the survey, 49% of them did no trade with the EU. Indeed whilst Stuart Rose was still at Business for Britain prior to his jump to BSE, he launched a report along with Lord Wolfsen, CEO of Next, that showed that only 5% of businesses have any trade relationship with the EU.
The Swiss obey EU pharmacy single market regulations.
Article in The Pharmaceutical Journal says ''UK industry would be weakened by exit from EU''
http://www.pharmaceutical-journal.com/opinion/comment/uk-industry-would-be-weakened-by-exit-from-eu/20065542.article
Whether those are palatable to you is a different question.
As for Sunday trading I couldn't disagree more. If I want to go shopping at 9am or 7pm on a Sunday, if a shop is willing to sell to me and if an employee is willing to work then I don't see why it's any of the government's business. We're all adults. Big government is not needed to dictate how we spend our money.
As I said, the Leave side needs to change the ground on which the debate is fought. It can't win by spending every day on the defensive trying to argue that experts (or people who will seem like experts) don't know what they are talking about or, even worse, have been nobbled or are dishonest.
Though I feel she tacks left due to her own brand of conservativism. She sees it as the path of least resistance.
I understand why they think that, but it's not consistent with British jurisprudence to imprison people whose cases are still going through the system because they might attempt to flee or disappear. There are circumstances which might allow that, but there has to be a reason to suspect that flight is planned, rather than merely the fact that they're foreign nationals.
A sensible solution that I'd support would be to hear the appeals against deportation while they were still serving their sentences, so that the position would be clear once they had completed their sentences. I'm not sure why that's not done - perhaps court overload?
For the whole of 2015, Ireland’s economy grew by 7.8 per cent compared to 2014.
Manufacturing recorded 14.2 per cent growth in 2015, while building and construction grew 8.8 per cent increase and personal consumption, which accounts for 55 per cent of domestic demand, rose by 3.5 per cent.
(from FT)
I can't see the mass of the parliamentary party voting for more of the same either this year, or in three year's time, and to continue it throughout the 2020s.
It'll be time for a change.
We are going to be ok whichever way we go from an economic perspective.
So we have a two part choice:
A. Ruled by Brussels or B. Independent
if B:
then there is a second discussion on (i) progressive, outward-looking country; or (ii) inward looking, closed border approach
I will fight extremely hard to secure option (i) but I am pretty confident that the majority of Brits are naturally supportive of that way. So - in my view - if we vote for B in the first question, we are almost certain to end up with B(i).
So from a mathematical perspective, where p = probability of any given outcome
(Bi x p) + (Bii x p) > A
I am just trying to get a handle on stay/go as it affects each industry sector.
As for agriculture, it was put to me that the UK govt of whatever stripe was not to be trusted to maintain subsidies (GO in one of his moments of egalitarianism; or Lab in their continuous state of loathing the countryside). As such, the feeling was very strongly to stay within the EU. As I say, rightly or wrongly because I appreciate that subsidies for UK farmers aren't everyone's cup of tea.
I do understand the arguments about migration and as I have said before I think the current policy we run is inherently racist and counter productive for the UK. It allows free movement of EU citizens regardless of their ability to contribute to the UK economy or well being but hinders the ability of highly qualified non EU citizens to come to the UK and contribute to our country.
But I am never going to win an argument that says cut EU migration and increase non EU migration. Both sides would crucify me for entirely different reasons.
So for me I accept that the migration argument is one for which there is no satisfactory answer and as such it doesn't play into my view of what we should do. From the point of view of sovereignty, trade, democracy and national well being I think the EEA route is by far the best.
There's a belief that because the former is very intelligent and the latter a fantastic actor, their endorsement is an effective QED and that's simply the end of the matter.
I'm not seeing anything great from Remain, I am seeing a lot of facetime engagement by Leave.
I know you're pissed off that VoteLeave haven't replied to your email, that isn't the whole campaign effort. Chin up.
It might be worth listening to the BBC program I linked to earlier. Here you have someone who found it difficult to upend his family once more to move to the UK. Yet he did, and I doubt anyone here regrets his decision.
If we were outside the EU, the calculation in such eminent scientists' minds might be slightly different, especially if free movement with the EU is challenged.
It's a wonder how the UK not only survived for 1,000 years before we joined but also became the world's first industrialised nation, invited many of the modern technological marvels we take for granted today, built the greatest empire the world has ever seen, spread its language and freedoms across the globe and saved Europe from itself (by itself) on several occasions.
There's a possibility as yet unknown that Hillary won't get to the starting stalls and Bernie is now a credible POTUS.Are you feeling it? #FeelTheBern.
If Stephen Fry said he supports Brexit because the EU mandates RADA to accept 84% non-UK students and if a British actor wants to work in the EU he must fill in 500 forms, then his opinion would be valid because he is an actor and he is knowledgeable about his own industry.
If Stephen Fry supports Brexit because he thinks all Remain supporters are ghastly and ignorant, then that is less valid.
Stehpen Hawking is opining on his own industry as it is affected by the EU = valid opinion.
They're mathematically identical and having both just decreases liquidity.
Bloody daft.
I would expect a scientist to be an expert in their chosen scientific field. That's very very different to having a nuanced and balanced view the policy issues surrounding it. It's the difference between understanding nuclear fusion and knowing what the UK's nuclear policy should be for the next 50 years.
It is very probable that some scientists become very involved in the wider implications of their work - public policy, funding, working with governments, corporate sponsors, and other funding bodies, but they are not scientists in that capacity, and this sort of dual role isn't a given. I would expect and indeed hope that many more are in the main dedicated to their research, so their main concern regarding politics would be where the money to allow them to continue their research is coming from.
Your claim that the inward investment is solely due to our membership of the EU is also laughable. Just like all those claims that businesses would leave if we didn't join the Euro.
Your ridiculous attempt to dismiss this shows how poor your arguments really are.
It's absurd that I can't collect it myself from the very place they leave from.
One person in this thread has made one catty remark about Stephen Hawking. Collective trollies?
Indeed it isn't.
btw there are 1500 fellows of the royal society - what do the other 90% think?
They are trying to advance one size fits all arguments for Leave Remain.
So if Hawking says that's how it might affect his industry fine. Likewise lots of other people can state how it will affect theirs. As a manufacturer I'd say my industry would be stronger outside the EU.
And that's the nub. The EU affects different people in different ways each will vote for their own interest. Daft claims of it's all or nothing are just that - daft, but that's the level of the argument atm.
ETH Zurich, Univ of Zurich (separate institute from ETH Zurich), Univ of Geneve, ETH Lausanne. Geneva benefits from having CERN on its door.
In fact, the point Leavers should be making is that Switzerland has unbelievably strong research expertise in technology, science and medicine and it is ***outside*** the European Union.
When the Swiss Universities were no longer entitled to apply for EU grants, they sensibly enough just set up their own scheme (so Scott’s original point, mouthing Stephen Hawking, was nonsense).
Florida 53 47
Illinois 51 49
Missouri 47 53
North Carolina 60 40
Ohio 47 53
So basically a win in both Missouri and Ohio, whilst keeping Illinois roughly level and not losing by too much in Florida and North Carolina.
The key delegate total is 255 behind. Michigan gives a prayer, if not a wing I guess.
Bernie WILL start to come back after this point, as there are alot of whiter midwestern states to come.
The polling is
61.50 31.00
57.00 28.00
53.00 25.00
52.00 35.00
56.00 35.00
Which currently puts Sanders 436 delegates behind and he is totally dead then even with blowout wins in the midwest.
20-1 is a fair value bet according to Betfair's odds. 11% implied value over f.v.
?
How big is Switzerland? I'll tell you 8 million. (20% immigrant. Indeed first and second generation immigrants now make up more than a third of Switzerland's inhabitants over the age of 15)
How many world class universities do you expect it to have.
https://twitter.com/DegsyHatton/status/707892868795535360
And where did the EU get the money from...?
Scientists above all should hold that true. Without it, the world would have believed Einstein and we wouldn't have quantum mechanics, or mathematics would be stuck in Hilbert's finitism.
How big is Switzerland? I'll tell you 8 million. (20% immigrant. Indeed first and second generation immigrants now make up more than a third of Switzerland's inhabitants over the age of 15)
How many world class universities do you expect it to have.
I believe it has two, who I dare say don't have a problem getting research scientists, the rest are pretty mediocre and do. Switzerland's ability to get research scientists is to do with the quality of their institutions, the two good ones will be fine, the others won't. I expect the same applies in any other country. It has nothing to do with the EU or money. If it was to do with money as claimed the gulf states would be dripping in high powered universities and dripping in research scientists.
What the EU has done with regard to research money is interesting.
When the UK dispenses grant money, it tends to spread it around pretty evenly. So, following Blackadder, the three great universities of Oxford, Cambridge and Hull all got some grant money.
What the EU has done is ruthlessly concentrate the grant money at elite institutes. So, now Cambridge gets truly tonnes of grant money, it is probably the largest single beneficiary in the EU of the grant program.
Hull gets a little tiny bit, and universities in the former Eastern Europe or Portugal or Ireland get even less. The EU has produced a few lottery winners, but many. many more losers.
Given that Cambridge University is such a remarkable beneficiary of EU largesse, it is not too surprising that Hawking and co are so keen on it.
Historical note: the UK goes back to 1603. England indeed was created by foreign conquest.
Mind you, if I had your prejudices, I'd prefer fantasy to reality, too
Yes the funding argument is bogus given the small scale of EU science funding and the fact that we are a net budget contributor, and the freedom of movement argument is bogus as well, given that no-one is suggesting limiting the free movement of talented scientists.
I'm sure he knows this is as well. He's a wily character.
If there is any such effect, that would make the bet more attractive.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/suncolumnists/rodliddle/6989065/Rod-Liddle-Migrant-crisis-is-bad-but-EU-just-made-it-worse.html
The reality is that the current funding models mean that a lot of money comes from EU wide funds and like many other things a leave vote would change that. Again, the UK could pump just as much money in, but they might not. I can understand academics at top institutions who do very well out of the EU wide funds not wanting any change.
Are all 150 of them likewise narrowly (Cantab-focused) self-interested?
If a famous personage comes out in favour of Brexit , they are principled people putting the interests of the UK first and ( of course ) any reasons they have given are expertly put and correct .
If a famous personage comes out in favour of staying in the EU , they are unprincipled / putting their own interests first / socialists / mistaken / have no experience of politics and/or economics / have been got at by Cameron etc etc .
It's gone online instead and still massive.
'You have to laugh sometimes at the Leave posters on here'
In terms of having a laugh,any idea when Nick Clegg & his 3 million jobs will be making an appearance ?
Or have Remain made the decision to keep him away from the media ?
NEW THREAD NEW THREAD
Biathlon with a dodgy ticker. Very impressive.
A thread dedicated specifically to just such a purpose with perhaps 200-300 PBers contributing, or alternatively in a poll format if that could be arranged, would provide an interesting insight into how opinion may be shifting.
PS The solidus ("/") almost always makes for bad writing.
In other words the UK pays less, not more, than 10 billion and Ireland pays a lot less than several billion