Brexit is already damaging European science
nature.com
nature.com
I don't think blaming voters for their democratically expressed views is fair. The referendum asked the populace if they wanted to remain or leave the EU. And the politicians got the answer, and it wasn't particularly surprising, even if they weren't personally happy with it. They are supposed to represent the electorate democratically, after all.
Forgetting for a second the whole thing was just a ploy to win over UKIP voters, it is ridiculous that this far down the line leave still hasn't been defined. A small part of me thinks that maybe May is playing the 4D chess long-con, and deliberately being as incompetent as possible to drive us to a last-minute remain outcome. Ockham's Razor says otherwise though
They actively chose something that you say was poorly defined but which was widely understood to be a very dramatic and potentially dangerous shift for the country. If you can't blame them for picking a poorly defined option out of some jingoistic notion of what the UK should be, what can you blame anyone for?
I mean, can you believe this?
https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1800/1*piGY6KAwYsDSweClC...
https://s-i.huffpost.com/gen/1521502/thumbs/o-SUN-FRONT-PAGE...
On top of that it has been proven that the leave campaign lied and broke the law regarding funding.
Like that David Cameron clown, for instance.
I think one can. Britain is a democracy. An old one. If one votes for a dramatic departure from the status quo without asking how it will be executed, that's a failure of civic duty. Voters own a share in their democracies' successes and failures; economically, politically and morally.
As an aside, I think terms like 'jingoistic' aren't helpful to discussion. I've never quite understood why it's jingoistic to prefer UK sovereignty but not jingoistic to prefer European sovereignty.
Its actually precisely the opposite.
Berxit is distracting the populace so that politicians don't have to fix things have been broken for quite some time.
If nothing else, the result showed a major disconnect between the policies of the main parties and the wishes of the electorate, and it will be good to have that democratic deficit rectified.
Anybody with a battle bus clearly knows what they're doing.
We didn't need a referendum to enact the minimum wage, legalise gay marriage, or many other key positive shifts for British society, and nor have we had referenda for populist ideas like becoming a republic, removing the House of Lords, or reintroducing the death penalty.. so why we got a referendum for such a poorly understood and complex concept as EU membership is beyond me.
I'm guessing they're not the elected representatives of the people, right? Otherwise, there wouldn't be a problem with them making the decisions they've been elected to make.
People felt strongly enough about progressive politics and the policies that went with that to vote Labour numerous times in the 90s and 2000s.
Anyone who felt so strongly about throwing the country into a tailspin by exiting the EU could have quite easily voted for the UK Independence Party in at least 2 general elections.
A referendum is a survey of the population. Most rigorous surveys, never ask a simple Yes/No question to the final objective. A survey questionnaire has a detailed set of questions which considers various aspects of the final decision. Ideally, these questions should be discussed and ratified within the parliament. Then, based on answers to these questions - you can have a next round of discussion in the parliament. You can decide to make your final decision for Yes or a No.
It's almost as if we are intentionally ignoring all these years of progress made by science to solicit public opinion.
Please note, I'm not talking about Brexit but the act of indulging into a referendum in general.
- There will be no downside to Brexit, only a considerable upside. (David Davis, 10 October 2016)
- The day after we vote to leave, we hold all the cards and we can choose the path we want. (Michael Gove, 9 April 2016)
- Getting out of the EU can be quick and easy – the UK holds most of the cards (John Redwood, July 17 2016)
- The free trade agreement that we will have to do with the European Union should be one of the easiest in human history (Liam Fox, 20 July 2017)
- Let’s give our NHS the £350m the EU takes every week.
- A vote for leave will be a vote to cut immigration.
But the actual approach to withdrawal was always going to be incredibly complex. There are obvious, valid reasons for staying in the EU and obvious, valid reasons for leaving the EU. Almost any headline coming from Europe is going to be anti-Brexit; almost every headline about the issue is going to be highly biased.
The pro-Brexit arguments assume that the UK was getting less than it was giving to the EU - sacrificing money, border sovereignty, financial sovereignty for economic incentives that the UK is likely able to negotiate for anyway. The anti-Brexit arguments coming from outside of the UK are mostly impassioned moral attacks insulting anti-globalists, or fearmongering.
The EU has been on a slow decline, and the Brexit may hasten that decline, along with renewed trade pressure from the US and China. Britain holds more cards than every other EU nation besides Germany. It doesn't make sense for them to lend their weight to non-contributing economies.
But here's the rub. The UK never gave that up.
England (and by default Ireland) are not in the Schengen accord[1].
You cannot get into the UK from Europe without passing border control and showing your passport (Id for some countries).
Even if you stretch that argument (our borders are porous and any EU citizen can move the UK to work) that argument still doesn't wash.
You have to be documented and all.
The UK never gave up control of their borders.
Although other documentation, like national ID cards will do, they can cause trouble. I don't know if it's official policy or what, but I travel by land and sea around the EU very often and I've had problems with over-zealous border officials many a time.
For instance, I've been delayed twice at the French border from and to the UK by French officials, who pretended they couldn't determine whether my Greek national ID card is valid (allegedly, because it doesn't have an expiration date; Greek ID cards currently don't) and kept repeating that "if you had a passport, things would have been so much easier, now we have to call a specialist to examine this document" wink-wink, nudge-nudge.
[The funny thing is, I was travelling with my cousin's ID card by mistake, but they didn't realise because we look very much like each other- "specialist" guy, my arse]
So while officially you can travel without a passport in the Schengen area, in practice, you better have some ID.
I agree that you never should travel without ID, but not accepting a Greek id just borders on ridiculous.
I very rarely had to show ID on inter-Schengen flights. But I'm certainly not stupid enough to not carry one.
The only European country where I actually carry my passport is England. Since you can't use the automated gates with an ID. But I never had trouble with my (Swiss) id.
That's what agreements and accords are for.
Or are you suggesting that UK unilaterally grants rights, which they don't receive in return?
Ironically, the UK was one of the most open and welcoming countries, when ex eastern European countries were granted the freedom of movement.
They took a lot of opt outs, from the Euro to parts of judical agreements and then some from the EU.
They could also have opted out to some extent. But probably the lure of cheap employees sounded just too good to be true.
'Sovereignty is the full right and power of a governing body over itself, without any interference from outside sources or bodies.'
Sounds to me like a pretty conclusive definition.
but the funny man with the silly hair said we did! he said it on TV and the daily mail said it as well!! i trust him as he says we have a plan, plus one time he got stuck on a zipwire - that's so relatable! what a nice down to earth guy.
The funny man who was caught in multiple lies, when he was Brussels correspondent for The Telegraph? So brazen and repeated that not even The Telegraph could keep him on?
Funny man, indeed. Alas with grave consequences for the whole country.
It seems short cited to simply measure internal numbers and then face larger markets as a group of smaller fragmented markets....
Plus, anyone who was capable of applying for research jobs on an international level found the salaries quite pathetic.
This whole progression was sadly, not unexpected.
I tend to agree with Aristides or Socrates (rip by vote) that people are idiots and democracy can't work without education.. atleast about the issue that is being voted.