EU Scraps 115 Grants For UK Scientists And Academics Amid Brexit Row (theguardian.com) 183
British scientists and academic researchers have been dealt a blow after 115 grants from a flagship EU research programme were terminated because of the continuing Brexit row over Northern Ireland. From a report: One academic said he was "relieved" to be exiting the country and feared the UK was going down a "dark path" like Germany in the 1930s. One hundred and fifty grants were approved for British applicants after the then Brexit minister, David Frost, successfully negotiated associate membership of the $95.3bn Horizon Europe programme but most will now be cancelled. Beneficiaries in the UK were told by the European Research Council (ERC) that unless associate membership had been approved by 29 June, the grants would not be available unless the researchers moved their work to a European institution.
Ratification of the membership has been in abeyance because the UK has not implemented the Brexit trading arrangements agreed under the Northern Ireland protocol. With the deadline passed, it has emerged that just 18 of the 150 academics will take up the grants but must move to an EU institution to get the funds. Thiemo Fetzer, a professor of economics at the University of Warwick who was approved for $1.53m of funding for research into media and geopolitics, confirmed he was one of the 18 who had reluctantly decided to move to the EU. He said: "I am relieved as this whole Brexit process has eroded my trust in the UK's institutions and this Horizon Europe association was just another incarnation of this."
Ratification of the membership has been in abeyance because the UK has not implemented the Brexit trading arrangements agreed under the Northern Ireland protocol. With the deadline passed, it has emerged that just 18 of the 150 academics will take up the grants but must move to an EU institution to get the funds. Thiemo Fetzer, a professor of economics at the University of Warwick who was approved for $1.53m of funding for research into media and geopolitics, confirmed he was one of the 18 who had reluctantly decided to move to the EU. He said: "I am relieved as this whole Brexit process has eroded my trust in the UK's institutions and this Horizon Europe association was just another incarnation of this."
Do not protest vote (Score:5, Insightful)
Protests votes do not end well. They are not how you give the ruling class the middle finger. There are 3 main ways to do that:
1. Have as few kids as possible ("We Are The Last Generation",
2. Vote against pro-corporate candidates.
3. Talk to your friends and family about not voting for pro-corporate candidates.
Re: (Score:2)
that's the lesson I learned here. Brexit passed in large part due to a large number of "protest" votes.
I'm not sure that's true. I think Farrage lost the Leave campaign votes over all and his whole platform was protest voting.
A bigger problem, IMO, is that when you have an agreement that something is bad, that doesn't map to an agreement about what is better.
The margin was so thin (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
that it wouldn't have passed without the protest votes. People didn't think EU membership was bad, at least not enough to pass Brexit.
I really think you're waaaay off on that.
Cameron knew that the anti-EU vote was falling and miscalculated how far. But the actual vote represented a dip in Leave, not some sort of miracle boost.
Re: (Score:2)
The margin was so thin that it wouldn't have passed without the illegal abuse of Facebook data and targeted ads.
The margin was so thin that it wouldn't have passed without help from Russia. I don't know why Putin didn't just give up after brexit, that could have been his great legacy - the destruction of the United Kingdom.
Re: (Score:2)
1. Have as few kids as possible
Checked. "I'm doing my part!"
2. Vote against pro-corporate candidates
Who?
3. Talk to your friends and family about not voting for pro-corporate candidates
See point one. Outside of a nephew and two nieces who think I'm a dinosaur, everyone else in the family is dead. So I guess checked?
Vote in your primary (Score:2)
That's where talking to your family and friends comes in. Get them voting, and make sure the ones who _do_ vote understand the tricks used to manipulate them.
Re: (Score:2)
As an American, I feel it's not really my place to speak for or against Brexit. I don't get why so many others do. It feels a bit arrogant and pretentious to sit here in my chair, having nothing at all to do that country, and telling them how they should vote for their own internal issues that affect their daily life, even when they have nothing to do with mine.
So why the hell do you do it?
Speak of this, the government is a corporation. Do you want politicians that will abolish that too? Oh wait, silly me,
I completely disagree (Score:2)
In the case of brexit as an American it benefits you financially for the United Kingdom to exit the Union. The European Union is a trade organization that exists so that the individual countries of Europe don't get picked a
Godwin (Score:3)
One academic said he was "relieved" to be exiting the country and feared the UK was going down a "dark path" like Germany in the 1930s.
It's a bit unusual for the summary to tread so closely to the Godwin rule, but I guess that's the new norm in online discourse.
Clearly, with such divisive writing, Slashdot editors are following in Goebbels' footsteps!!
Re: (Score:2)
It's a bit unusual for the summary to tread so closely to the Godwin rule, but I guess that's the new norm in online discourse.
Mike Godwin himself has said he is fine for calling Trumpists like those in Charlottesville Nazis, and that it does not violate his "rule". I doubt he would have any trouble with calling out populists in the UK during Brexit either. He said he never intended his statements to mean you could never call out populists and fascists anymore.
If you cannot call out populist leaders in the US and UK, you are just asking for parties like the Nazis to get into power.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a bit unusual for the summary to tread so closely to the Godwin rule
There's nothing usual about a wealthy western nation so self absorbed in nationalism in the 21st century that they would voluntarily screw themselves out of lucrative trading partnerships. Mind you there's nothing usual about what was going on in the USA either, Jan 6 is clearly evidence that.
Godwin's law is a law about discussion ad absurdum. The idea that invoking Hitler is stupid. It's not Godwin's law to point out that insane nationalism is precisely what lead to the rise of Nazi Germany, that's teachin
Re: (Score:3)
Since Britain is trying to scrap the right to protest and is sending refugees to Rwanda, you can kinda see his point.
Re: (Score:2)
It is/was a reasonable fear.
It might be past tense now because Boris Johnson just announced he is stepping down as PM. The fish rots from the head and whoever takes over might steer the UK away from the Trumpian lies and authoritarianism. Might.
Either way the UK is still screwed.
I'm surprised more countries don't leave (Score:2, Insightful)
The sheer volume of regulations you have to commit to (having primacy over your own countries constitution) are mind boggling.
Re: (Score:2)
Then why did they vote to join the first place? Brexit sure is going splendidly for the brits. Like all those expats living in Spain who were flabbergasted when they had to leave.
I thought brexit meant less brown people! What do you mean I have to apply for a visa! This isn't what I meant...
Re: (Score:2)
Then why did they vote to join the first place? Brexit sure is going splendidly for the brits. Like all those expats living in Spain who were flabbergasted when they had to leave.
I thought brexit meant less brown people! What do you mean I have to apply for a visa! This isn't what I meant...
The incredible number of unintended consequences - or unexpected ones, I should say - doesn't speak well to the smarts of the majority of British voters.
The ripple effects of the once simplified travel is one. The ripple effects of the now cancelled Horizon Europe program is another.
But make no mistake - I will be called out by the pro Brexiteers, and that merely shows that as people who are smarter than anyone else, they saw all the consequences, and approve of all of them.
Re: (Score:2)
Then why did they vote to join the first place? Brexit sure is going splendidly for the brits. Like all those expats living in Spain who were flabbergasted when they had to leave.
A lot has changed over the last 40 years. The UK started in the EU in the 70s when it was just an economic union. It has metastasized quite substantially since that time with tens of thousands of new binding laws coming from Brussels.
Re: (Score:3)
And throughout these changes the UK was a member of the EU and wielded enormous power due to being one of the most populous and one of the economically most powerful members of the EU:
Re: (Score:3)
It has metastasized quite substantially since that time with tens of thousands of new binding laws coming from Brussels.
Laws we often proposed and very often voted for.
Re: (Score:2)
Brussels doesn't actually make laws. The EU has directives, which member states then integrate into their own laws. They have a lot of leeway in how they implement directives. In practice they can often just ignore ones they don't like, and eventually the EU compromises with them.
That said, the UK voted in favour of almost all new EU directives anyway. It's not like we even wanted to diverge from them, until suddenly that became a justification for brexit.
Re: (Score:2)
Most leadership is not opposed to more regulations as a matter of principle, but only to those regulations that go against their national strategy. It was the political ("federalist") integration that caused UK to take the step, not "the sheer volume of regulations." Also regulations are negotiated in backrooms for months and years to adapt to everybody's needs before presented to approval, which is what keeps the leaders satisfied for as long as they don't oppose *the principle* of these regulations and ar
Re: (Score:2)
a) EU regulations don't spring forth fully formed form the mind of Zeus. They are agreed upon by the EU members. A member country of the EU gets a say in what the EU regulations are.
b) EU regulations have effect *because of* each member's constitution. Every regulation is implemented by laws in each member country, they are not imposed.
Re: (Score:2)
a) EU regulations don't spring forth fully formed form the mind of Zeus. They are agreed upon by the EU members. A member country of the EU gets a say in what the EU regulations are.
If your country does not favor a particular piece of legislation or changes their mind and a majority votes for it anyway it is still imposed on you and binding nonetheless.
b) EU regulations have effect *because of* each member's constitution. Every regulation is implemented by laws in each member country, they are not imposed.
Yea like one of those open ended "I agree" click wraps that stipulates the deal can be changed at any time. It's not like the EU has an enforcement mechanism to "impose" its laws or anything...
https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/... [europa.eu]
Re: (Score:2)
If your country does not favor a particular piece of legislation or changes their mind and a majority votes for it anyway it is still imposed on you and binding nonetheless.
You are pointing out at one of the core concepts of democracy. I find it unsettling that this is the feature that you chose to criticize. Your city council, regional authorities, national legislature, and the UN General Assembly also work by majority vote that are binding to your neighborhood, district, region, nation, even when your particular elected Representative opposed it or voted in favor then changed their mind. Why would the EU work any differently?
The only good reasons I can figure are:
1) if you f
Re: (Score:2)
You are pointing out at one of the core concepts of democracy. I find it unsettling that this is the feature that you chose to criticize. Your city council, regional authorities, national legislature, and the UN General Assembly also work by majority vote that are binding to your neighborhood, district, region, nation, even when your particular elected Representative opposed it or voted in favor then changed their mind. Why would the EU work any differently?
The structure of the system - what powers are concentrated at what level matters not simply abstract ideas and labels.
While I think you can scale governance so that power is concentrated locally with fewer collective rules globally I don't support or believe that the opposite works. It's the structure and details that matter.
Take the UN for example. It's little more than a forum for those with power to communicate. By itself it holds no real power. If however this were not the case and the UN promulgate
Re: (Score:2)
Lets say the EU didn't exist at all. Would things meaningfully be any different? Would countries stop trading with each other or would you have arrangements similar to the early days in previous incantations of the EU? Wouldn't it be better if everyone could conduct commerce without the unnecessary meddling?
Trading would be worse for (most of) the current EU members. Each individual country is in a weaker position to negotiate trade deals than the EU as a whole.
Countries would be trading, but they would gain less and lose more.
Note that trade deals often don't just contain rules about trade itself but the stronger partner often uses the chance to push other changes in the fields of economy, politics, health and environmental standards unto the weaker partner.
Re: (Score:2)
This is my problem with the EU. Continuous scope creep over the decades.
Creating a "wider and deeper community" that goes beyond "economic unification" is in the Schuman Declaration from 1950 and the political nature of the ECC was explicit in the debate for the accession of the UK in 1972. The creep you mention is intentional, it is part of the plan to slowly make it a country. As of today the EU fulfils the definition for a confederation, and the push to call it a federation only failed due to the opposition of UK. There is no need to call it a country, but this explains the
Re: (Score:3)
The sheer volume of regulations you have to commit to (having primacy over your own countries constitution) are mind boggling.
The regulations you have to commit to you do so anyway thanks to the desire to trade with the world's largest and wealthiest trading block. The price of admission compared to the benefits is incredibly low.
You said you're surprised more countries don't leave, why not instead ask yourself why so many other countries are keen to join. Why not ask yourself, why does it make sense for your own regulations (or lack of regulations) to differ from those from a potential customer only hundreds of km away.
That's the
It's called non-tariff barriers (Score:2)
The sheer volume of regulations you have to commit to (having primacy over your own countries constitution) are mind boggling.
This is disingenuous. There is nothing stopping countries passing any laws they like, but with the freedom to break agreements, there's a freedom to take the consequences.
So why have all these regulations? Welcome to the world of international trade agreements, where the answer is simple, NON TARIFF BARRIERS. To given an example, I want to sell you 10 tons of bananas we need to agree:
Re: (Score:2)
Have you looked at your country's laws? It is mind boggling how many rules you have to obey, why haven't you left your country already?
I know right .. sucks doesn't it?
If you think this is bad take all of those laws in my country and add tens of thousands more laws imposed upon my country by a federation of countries that cannot be changed even if everyone in my country wanted them to be changed... This would suck even more.
Re: (Score:2)
I keep wondering which country you're in where there is basically only one homogeneous layer of government. Some small Pacific Island? Perhaps a Caribbean island? Somewhere in Africa? Perhaps Iceland?
Re: (Score:2)
If everyone in that country did want them changed, that country would simply leave, as Britain has done.
Realists note that the vast majority of the rules are either things that need to be obeyed regardless of membership (product standards) or that really need to be sorted out on a continental basis (environmental; you can't have a no-pissing end of a pool). So while membership has downsides, leaving just takes away your ability to mitigate them and leaves you a subject.
It's also worth noting that Britain wa
Oh no, here come the consequences of our actions! (Score:2)
Falling in line with the EU zeitgeist in 1984 (Score:2)
Who cares about what these UK scientists have to contribute to knowledge in the EU?
All that matters is that we all fall in line with the wishes of the Leadership.
1984 is already way behind us.
Re: (Score:2)
The wishes of the leadership are that we stick to the deals we signed.
You're a fuckwit if you think that being given the cold shoulder for reneging on a deal signed a little over a year ago is "1984".
Then again, the current opinion of the right is that free association isn't a right: you should be able to say and do anything with no consequences and people must be compelled to give you the time of day.
Bollocks (Score:2)
There is no point in reading Slashdot anymore it's like a reprint of the Guardian.
Re: (Score:3)
And have you seen what that supposed sovereignty has produced? There's a Prime Minister who literally has lost the support of most his cabinet who refuses to leave office.
And why should the EU fund British scientists anyways?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And have you seen what that supposed sovereignty has produced? There's a Prime Minister who literally has lost the support of most his cabinet who refuses to leave office
I hope that the current mess will lead to change. That would be impossible in the EU.
The core value of leaving the EU is that our mess is now our fault and people need to, and can, vote for change.
Re: (Score:2)
What would be impossible in the EU? That the mess would lead to change? I don't see what the UK gained. So far it seems to me that they lost. A lot. Now there is a border that is keeping the average citizen in. Money is always free to travel. That's all I see so far.
Re: (Score:2)
You should tell that myth to Russian money. Or better not. Those people are so pissed right now, and dying so fast to mysterious bullets that one of said mysterious bullets may hit those mocking them like that.
Re: (Score:2)
What would be impossible in the EU? That the mess would lead to change?
Yes. Look at the mess in the EU now - look at Greece, Italy, and Estonia. No one is going to lift a finger to help them in any meaningful way, just as no one is going to create a proper legislature which is elected. The EU is like the reverse of the UK - the "House of Lords" is in charge and the "House of Commons" only has revisionary powers.
I don't see what the UK gained. So far it seems to me that they lost. A lot. Now there is a border that is keeping the average citizen in. Money is always free to travel. That's all I see so far.
We should have kicked the Tories out, but alas.
I'm not sure what you mean about the border; I don't see a lot of difference for normal people except in the case of Nort
Re: (Score:2)
And have you seen what that supposed sovereignty has produced? There's a Prime Minister who literally has lost the support of most his cabinet who refuses to leave office
I hope that the current mess will lead to change. That would be impossible in the EU.
The core value of leaving the EU is that our mess is now our fault and people need to, and can, vote for change.
The mess was created by leaving the EU
That reminds me of one of the reports about texting while driving. It concluded that TWD creates a lot of accidents, but not a problem because they could use the cellphones to call 911 after they caused an accident.
Re: (Score:2)
Be fair. The EU is no Utopia. There were a lot of problems before BREXIT was even in the works. That BREXIT made it worse was not only predictable, but was also predicted.
HOWEVER, this particular kerfuffle is because the British government won't keep it's word. They lied about how they would deal with Northern Ireland after the split. They promised actions that they have not only refused to take, but that have stated they don't intend to take. Anyone who trusts them, even from a position of strength,
Re: (Score:2)
Be fair. The EU is no Utopia. There were a lot of problems before BREXIT was even in the works. That BREXIT made it worse was not only predictable, but was also predicted.
HOWEVER, this particular kerfuffle is because the British government won't keep it's word. They lied about how they would deal with Northern Ireland after the split. They promised actions that they have not only refused to take, but that have stated they don't intend to take. Anyone who trusts them, even from a position of strength, is foolish.
Perhaps after the next election this will improve, but the current position is going to make that quite difficult. One theory is that BREXIT was pushed by those who wanted to may the UK the world leader in money laundering. It's got some reasonable grounds, though I'd hardly call it proven.
There are some others who think that there was a lot of influence by a certain Eastern European country on the whole election as it were.
I'm not even a Brit, but the runup to Brexit and the results had me wondering if the Electorate in GB was at all paying attention to people who if they weren't trying to destroy the place, were doing a good job looking like they were. The changes were like getting rid of all the good aspects of the EU, and creating new ones of their own making.
Now I'm no big fan of t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What about the treaties Britain had with the rest of the EU would have made reforms impossible. Be specific here.
Re: (Score:2)
What about the treaties Britain had with the rest of the EU would have made reforms impossible. Be specific here.
Reform of the EU is impossible, that's my point. Although of course being in the EU put limits on how the country is run, for example re-nationalisation of the railways would be hard. Membership comes with all sorts of strings attached. I don't know why pro-EU people so like to pretend that clubs don't have rules.
Re:Narratives (Score:4, Insightful)
The core value of leaving the EU is that our mess is now our fault
You've been brainwashed. Your messes were always your own fault. The difference is now you can not longer blame the EU bogeyman for your government's own ineptitude.
Re: (Score:2)
The core value of leaving the EU is that our mess is now our fault
You've been brainwashed. Your messes were always your own fault. The difference is now you can not longer blame the EU bogeyman for your government's own ineptitude.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
Re: (Score:3)
Can't we? Read the thread, the usual idiots are still blaming the EU. Apparently when we renege on a deal and get blowback, that's the EU being "vindictive".
Re: (Score:2)
>One academic said he was "relieved" to be exiting the country and feared the UK was going down a "dark path" like Germany in the 1930s.
Must be a very high ivory tower to claim that nation restoring its sovereignty from foreign government structure is the same as becoming that foreign government structure that seeks control over surrounding sovereign nations.
Specifically, heck of a fall and impact on the head for the poor "academic".
Indeed. The paranoia of Remainers continues to run hot.
Aside from anything else, 1930's Germany was run by a competent, if evil, regime. We've just got bloody Boris.
Re: (Score:2)
My brain:
Oh god, not this again.
Okay. You win. You made me laugh.
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, Boris seems to be exceptionally competent at staying in power in face of pretty stiff opposition from all sides so far. Most political pundits predicted he's be forced to quit when the partygate came out.
Re:Narratives (Score:5, Insightful)
If anything, sovereignty has been decreased by Brexit.
Most of the EU rules are about setting common standards. This benefits commerce, because instead of potentially having 27 slightly different versions of your thing, or having to figure out whether your design might break some law in one of those, you have 27 countries agreeing on something that they're all okay with.
The UK's new "sovereignty" means it can do things differently, yes. But it means that the EU stops trusting it to comply with those agreed on rules by default, and now they must provide copious documentation to prove they're doing so. This makes UK products far harder to export. From the opposite point of view, whenever the EU decides to change its rules, the UK now gets no say at all in it. It can take it or leave it. Being in the EU would be an opportunity to stop, delay or compromise if the rule bothers the UK in some way. Now what the UK thinks is completely irrelevant, and won't be taken into account. That's not really an improvement.
Re: (Score:2)
If anything, sovereignty has been decreased by Brexit.
Most of the EU rules are about setting common standards. This benefits commerce,
As Germany is finding out, commerce isn't everything. You can't run your country just on the basis of what's good for business; it's more complex than that.
When the EU crushed Greece it literally chose to kill people to protect commerce, specifically the German banking system. That crossed a line for me and after that there was no way I would not have voted Leave, even though it ostensibly put me in the same camp as Frog-Faced Farage. People who vote against something are not always voting for the same end
Re: (Score:3)
The clearest example of reduced sovereignty in the UK is the new trade deals we did with countries like Australia and New Zealand. They took advantage of our weakness to get deals that screw our farmers and greatly benefit theirs.
The government's own figures show that the New Zealand deal will add between 0% and -0.7% to the UK economy. In other words, best case we break even, more likely it's a net loss.
Without the pooled sovereignty of the EU, the UK is weak and being taken advantage of.
Re: (Score:2)
Must be a very high ivory tower to claim that nation restoring its sovereignty from foreign government structure is the same as becoming that foreign government structure that seeks control over surrounding sovereign nations.
Losing sovereignty by voting yourself into the EU? I can't even comprehend that logic.
Re: Narratives (Score:4, Insightful)
Losing sovereignty by voting yourself into the EU? I can't even comprehend that logic.
What are you falling to grasp exactly? Whenever you join a larger group, you lose some degree of sovereignty. Otherwise there would be no point in the agreement.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it was always Brexiteer bullshit to claim that.
Agreeing to follow common rules is not a loss of sovereignty, because you can always decide to leave and not follow them, exactly what the hateful bastards persuaded the stupid half of Britain to let them get away with doing.
Re: (Score:2)
Redefining words to explain away being wrong is a very interesting feature of human beings of certain political persuasion.
Re: (Score:2)
Sovereignty hasn't been lost by agreeing not to wield it - all of the options are still available, you're just choosing not to use some. It's a version of the prisoners dilemma. While in the EU we had a limited range of options between mediocre and acceptable. By leaving, we regained the ability to take exceptional options where they existed - none have yet presented themselves.
The sovereignty issue (and nobody ever used to mention the word in the UK before 2015) is just a facet of the TV-hypnotist devised
Re: (Score:2)
Must be a very high ivory tower to claim that nation restoring its sovereignty from foreign government structure
Sovereignty from foreign governments is something that exists exclusively for a self sufficient nation who does not trade with anyone else. The UK is not sovereign. You can see that in the actions of your government right now, free from the EU now to pass laws as requested by the USA, a desirable trading partner.
That is after all what a trade agreement is.
Re: (Score:2)
That makes one of you with that insane definition.
Re:Narratives (Score:5, Informative)
There was absolutely a reasonable middle in pre-Nazi Germany, with parties like the Social Democrats and the Center Party. Politically, Germany had two closely related problems. The first was that it had a multi-party, proportional representation system, which encouraged a large number of small parties. That meant the government was almost always a fragile coalition that had a hard time getting much done. The closely related problem was the Great Depression, which strained even strong governments. The weak coalitions in Germany just weren't up to the task of dealing with it.
On top of that, the extremist parties had literal party paramilitaries that were murdering each other in the streets, like a more extreme version of the Proud Boys and Antifa today. The level of street violence helped to convince voters that the centrist parties just weren't capable of maintaining order and something stronger was needed. So basically the extremists were able to convince voters to vote for them by making life worse.
Re: (Score:2)
So basically the extremists were able to convince voters to vote for them by making life worse.
So basically what is happening now in the US, but without as much of the violence.
Re: Narratives (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
But the parties are changing due to this. The Republican leadership certainly seems quite scared to stand up to Trump in general, who remains as a king maker. Extremists seem to be calling the shots a lot for Republicans, with litmus tests being very concerned about whether potential candidates are willing to push the Big Lie that the elections were stolen. And the king maker seems reluctant to condemn or disavow the violence, while possibly encouraging it (even if he doesn't realize it, to be charitable,
Re: (Score:2)
“Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere the ceremony of innocence is lost
The best lack all conviction, while the worst are filled with passionate intensity.”
W.B. Yeats
Re: (Score:2)
"The National Socialist German Workers' Party (NSDAP), until then a minor far-right party, increased its votes to 19%, becoming Germany's second largest party, while the Communist Party of Germany (KPD) also increased its votes; this made the unstable coalition system by which every chancellor had governed increasingly unworkable. The last years of the Weimar Republic was marred by even more systemic political instability than in the previous years as political violence increased."
https://en.wikipedia.org/w [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Germany in the 30s fell prey to the left and right going to populist extremes leaving no reasonable middle.
Britain with the horrible populists Johnson and Corbyn was headed that way, and you are being ignorant or disingenuous in not recognising that fact.
Maybe the UK is pulling back to the centre a bit now.
But the US...
...Currently isn't being isolated by its allies. Quite the opposite in fact, it turns out that, once again, we're somewhat (but not entirely) the lone bulwark of stability right now. Sure, the EU talks up a storm about how they want to help Ukraine, but then they go buy Putin's oil to fund his war machine.
Re:Narratives (Score:5, Insightful)
but then they go buy Putin's oil to fund his war machine.
You're being disingenuous. It is basically impossible to suddenly cease a trade of an energy resource that is largely delivered via pipeline cold turkey. Firstly the EU has massively reduced the import of oil from Russia and is attempting to secure alternate sources, not an easy task since refineries are generally designed to run oil with certain properties making it non-trivial to simply buy it elsewhere. What the EU hasn't reduced much has been gas, as import facilities are insufficient to make up deficits from the loss of pipeline transfers, all the while there's a general expectation that the lights stay on and that people can still get to work.
Transferring energy resources from one primary country to another is something that takes literal years. Unless that is you're a ruthless dictator and you're okay with your population freezing and starving, in that case you can just turn off the tap whenever you want.
In the meantime EU isn't "talking" about helping Ukraine, they are helping Ukraine, taking refugees, providing weapons, providing direct funding. But just don't expect the EU to kill its own citizens in the process, and I mean that in the literal sense.
Re:Narratives (Score:5, Insightful)
You're being disingenuous. It is basically impossible to suddenly cease a trade of an energy resource that is largely delivered via pipeline cold turkey.
Cold turkey? THEY HAD 8 YEARS NOTICE! They even witnessed Putin's actions first hand! The US was begging and pleading with Germany to stop increasing its reliance on Russian oil for THIS EXACT REASON. Not only did they laugh in our faces, but they continued decommissioning their nuclear plants.
Firstly the EU has massively reduced the import of oil from Russia and is attempting to secure alternate sources
They're not trying very hard.
Transferring energy resources from one primary country to another is something that takes literal years.
Good thing they had literal years, isn't it? Good thing the US had been warning them of what Putin was intending for literal years, wasn't it?
Oh wait...they just chose to ignore us anyways...for literal years.
Re: (Score:2)
Cold turkey? THEY HAD 8 YEARS NOTICE!
Yeah everything looks like that with the power of hindsight doesn't it. Now back in reality Germany hasn't increased oil consumption from Russia over that time. They hadn't reduced it, but then why would they? Just because an abusive country on the other side of the world well known for using politics and diplomacy to their own gain at the expense of other countries they leave ruined in their wake said so?
Jees why wouldn't Germany just take the USA, a country which was just caught spying on the highest leve
Re: (Score:2)
Europe had decades to do something about it. Within a year after Putin came into power the sane voices in Russia warned the world of what was to come. As if it could be any different considering the history of Russia and the mentality of the population. And looking further back in time we see that Europe was warned by the US in the 70-ies already.
Europe refuses to take any meaningful steps in actually decreasing emissions. The only meaningful solution is of course well known, the dreaded N-word (talking 'bo
Re: (Score:2)
And looking further back in time we see that Europe was warned by the US in the 70-ies already.
You mean that Europe was warned by someone currently in at war (a cold war) that the other side is bad? NO FUCKING WAY! We should have done something about it. I mean that is soo trustworthy. Someone said something bad about someone everyone knew they hate, we need to do something RIGHT NOW! /sarcasm.
Seriously that opening statement of yours is precisely why no one takes other people seriously anymore, and the rest of your post contains just as much bullshit. By the way, carbon emissions in Europe peaked in
Re: Narratives (Score:5, Insightful)
Claiming that "sovereignity" was somehow "lost" and it had to be "restored" is as childish as the 320m nhs claim.
Just to make it clearer for the illiterate - the very act of "referendum" and invocation of article 50 alone put the "lost sovereignity" narrative to bed.
The ability to leave had to have been a requirement in order to form the EU in the first place. This doesn't mean once your in you don't loose a great deal of sovereignty.
Here is an executive summary of all of the shit you have to agree to in order to even be in the EU.
https://ec.europa.eu/neighbour... [europa.eu]
There are presently tens of thousands of binding laws all member states have to enforce regardless of their own constitutions or the consensus of their populations. I'm amazed only the UK has decided to leave thus far.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm amazed only the UK has decided to leave thus far.
my favourite EU Directive is the one making it illegal to go selling squirrels door-to-door.
Re: (Score:2)
Wasn't that only for invasive gray ones?
Re: Narratives (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm amazed only the UK has decided to leave thus far.
And the entire world is amazed that the UK left, because while it's scary seeing a list of regulations, the overwhelming majority of them are a) common sense, b) not actually a problem, and c) the kind of thing you negotiated in international trade deals anyway. And for that pretty low price of admission you get access to the worlds largest and wealthiest trading bloc.
The only reason the UK left is because of the type of fear mongering you're putting out there, rational thought and debate about cost vs benefit goes out the window because "sovereignty" and "nationalism" and "fucking immigrants stealing our jobs".
Re: (Score:3)
The only reason the UK left is because of the type of fear mongering you're putting out there, rational thought and debate about cost vs benefit goes out the window because "sovereignty" and "nationalism" and "fucking immigrants stealing our jobs".
I would ask where I ever said anything about "nationalism" or "fucking immigrants" yet we all know the answer: YOU JUST MADE IT UP.
What I am doing is pointing out EU is a highly regulated institution. Membership entails agreeing to a massive volume of current and future regulations which entails giving up sovereignty to the whims of the majority of other countries.
And the entire world is amazed that the UK left, because while it's scary seeing a list of regulations, the overwhelming majority of them are a) common sense, b) not actually a problem, and c) the kind of thing you negotiated in international trade deals anyway. And for that pretty low price of admission you get access to the worlds largest and wealthiest trading bloc.
No clue the extent to which this is or is not true in terms of alignment of regulation with the sensibilities of any particular country. Surpr
Re: (Score:2)
What I am doing is pointing out EU is a highly regulated institution. Membership entails agreeing to a massive volume of current and future regulations which entails giving up sovereignty to the whims of the majority of other countries.
And you seem to be forgetting that the UK was one of the most active members in creating regulations.
No clue the extent to which this is or is not true in terms of alignment of regulation with the sensibilities of any particular country. Surprised all of them thus far have been aligned sufficiently to keep them from leaving.
Are you surprised or does the fact that no one else left say something more important?
Offering no opinion about brexit in particular. I simply believe dismissing sovereignty as a non-issue is crazy. The EU isn't simply a trading bloc anymore. Regulations go far beyond trade or even normalizing capital
The problem with the sovereignty argument is that it ignores the fact that the UK has a large hand in creating those regulations, and that the UK as a member could block the passing of any regulation. That's why the sovereignty argument was dismissed. That's like me complaining about being repressed when it comes to all the
Re: (Score:2)
And you seem to be forgetting that the UK was one of the most active members in creating regulations.
My commentary was not specific to any EU country. No clue who was responsible for what or what that has to do with my statement.
Are you surprised or does the fact that no one else left say something more important?
If I'm surprised it means I expect more yet since it has not happened this could either mean I'm wrong or unlucky. If I think it says something important that either means I'm wrong or unlucky.
No matter what I end up in the same place. Rumbling in various countries Austria, Hungry, Czech and a poor sample size. For all I know in a decade from now the EU could evaporate or it c
Re: (Score:3)
While I don't know what the objective basis for "large hand" is if true that UK had an outsized influence over EU that in itself is a problem. I do know there is an itemized listing of voting available starting in 2016.
You know the UK voted to leave in 2016, right? Cherry picking 2016 for your facts is dishonest at best.
Not according to the EU "Regulations are legal acts that apply automatically and uniformly to all EU countries as soon as they enter into force, without needing to be transposed into national law. They are binding in their entirety on all EU countries."
And what part of that says anything about what it takes to pass regulations and who may object to regulations. That's like saying as soon as Congress passes a law, it applies to the federal government.
ZOMG you mean the UK has to make trade agreements with the rest of the world just like every other country? That's so hard... they are doomed for sure.
You seemed to ignore the fact that the EU has hundreds of agreements and that means NOTHING to the UK when it left the EU. That destroys your argument. And how many of the hundreds of agreements has the UK re
Re: (Score:2)
The EU isn't simply a trading bloc anymore.
It never was. It's literally in its founding document (as the EEC), The Treaty of Rome of 1955, which was partly drafted by UK lawyers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The thing about EU regulations is that you will probably have to follow them even if you are not a member of the EU.
UK companies will follow them because it's not worth making two versions of every product, one for the EU and one for the UK. Only now they also have to get the product re-certified in the EU, because the UK's CE mark is no longer recognized.
China has to follow some EU rules, like ROHS, because the EU is a huge market. Even Canada adopted some EU rules in order to get equivalence so they could
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Narratives (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm amazed only the UK has decided to leave thus far.
It's the best example of what happens when you leave. Your economy tanks because all previous trade agreements need to be re-negotiated. You lose all the foreign talent who now has to apply for a work visa. You even get the joy of being nickel and dimed again because cell companies brought back roaming charges.
Can you list all the brexit benefits thus far?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Can you list all the brexit benefits thus far?
Here's the full and complete list of Brexit benefits:
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It's the best example of what happens when you leave. Your economy tanks because all previous trade agreements need to be re-negotiated. You lose all the foreign talent who now has to apply for a work visa. You even get the joy of being nickel and dimed again because cell companies brought back roaming charges.
The UK seems to be doing alright in terms of their economy. I think everyone assumed there would be short term issues due to volume of change. Personally I doubt membership ultimately makes any real long term difference one way or another.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy... [ons.gov.uk]
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy... [ons.gov.uk]
Can you list all the brexit benefits thus far?
You are asking the wrong person. My personal wish was UK stay in the EU just to piss off Nigel Farage... That's the level of my interest in the brexit drama.
Re: (Score:2)
There are presently tens of thousands of binding laws all member states have to enforce regardless of their own constitutions or the consensus of their populations. I'm amazed only the UK has decided to leave thus far.
You are aware that all members have to agree on the laws to pass them, right? The UK approved all the laws you complained about is a significant detail you are leaving out.
Re: (Score:2)
You are aware that all members have to agree on the laws to pass them, right?
Incorrect. Unanimous agreement is not required.
The UK approved all the laws you complained about is a significant detail you are leaving out.
Also incorrect. Regulations are immediately binding and supersede each countries constitution.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
This doesn't mean once your in you don't loose a great deal of sovereignty.
Yes it means precisely that.
Alabama for example is not a sovereign country. It tried to leave once, and men with guns forced it to not do that.
The UK is a sovereign country. We tried to leave, and we did. End of. We were never compelled to take the EUs rules.
Sovereign means we have the power to act as we wish and go in a direction of our choosing. We always had that. The deal with the EU is always "our way or GTFO". One day we chose
Re: (Score:2)
There are actually many available tiers of membership. EU membership is the top level, but below that there are various things like EEA membership, associate membership, enhanced trade deals and so forth. The UK had a choice of all of them, a hard brexit wasn't the only options.
https://img.huffingtonpost.com... [huffingtonpost.com]
The UK chose the worst possible option, despite promises that we would not leave the Single Market. Even Nigel Farage said that the "Norway option" was a good one for us, but early on Theresa May rule
Re: (Score:2)
Those two aren't opposites. But you'd have to know about actual facts rather than just narratives to know that.
Re: (Score:2)