EU Referendum

[Hacker Khan]

In my opinion he is not qualified to decide if the UK would be better in or out of the EU. He may have an opinion on funding for research projects but is not in a position to understand whether we would be better off overall. To suggest that we would not have funding for research or be able to collaborate with other centres in Europe is also an exaggeration. Where does he think the money comes from to fund R&D, it doesn't grow on a money tree in Bruxelles or Strasbourg. I have employed some very intelligent mathematicians who were capable of some brilliant development work but I would never have put them in front of a customer.

So because some academics do not have very developed social skills then that means any comment from people in universities are not valid?

And to just dismiss his opinion because he does not (in your opinion) have a full grasp on the total picture is again sounding very like you are desperate to dismiss it because it does not agree with your view. His thing is research funding into science, your thing is immigration. You may think the influx of immigrants will ruin this country in the future, he may well think a lack of research into science will ruin this country in the future. Neither of you have a full grasp on all the issues, no one does.

Well actually maybe you think you do, as you seem to saying his conclusion is exaggerated and are arguing with Stephen Hawking's conclusions on science funding. The Stephen Hawking who is the director of science funding at Cambridge university, arguably the best university in the world. Arguing with a man widely acknowledged to be one of the greatest thinkers of our time.

Still, bet his customer focus skills are rubbish and he's no George Galloway.....

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

So because some academics do not have very developed social skills then that means any comment from people in universities are not valid?

And to just dismiss his opinion because he does not (in your opinion) have a full grasp on the total picture is again sounding very like you are desperate to dismiss it because it does not agree with your view. His thing is research funding into science, your thing is immigration. You may think the influx of immigrants will ruin this country in the future, he may well think a lack of research into science will ruin this country in the future. Neither of you have a full grasp on all the issues, no one does.

Well actually maybe you think you do, as you seem to saying his conclusion is exaggerated and are arguing with Stephen Hawking's conclusions on science funding. The Stephen Hawking who is the director of science funding at Cambridge university, arguably the best university in the world. Arguing with a man widely acknowledged to be one of the greatest thinkers of our time.

Still, bet his customer focus skills are rubbish and he's no George Galloway.....

...and he doesn't wear a fedora with quite such eclat as Gorgeous George

 

[Ethan]

In referenda like this, Scotland also, and even when a political change of direction occurs with Trump or Corbyn (covering all political bases), the movement for change or out is often more driven and convinced by their cause. The group in favour of the status quo (or something close) are often less ideological and simply concerned about whether there is a need for change and what unseen adverse consequences might come along. If you like, one side says 'Well, it couldn't be worse ..' and the other side say 'It could be a lot worse, actually'.

 

[MegaSteve]

Can we, pretty please, leave the arsewipe that is George Galloway out of the thread...

Yesterdays tosser that is jumping on the bandwagon hoping someone will remember who he is...

 

[Old Skier]

Yesterdays tosser that is jumping on the bandwagon hoping someone will remember who he is...

Yep like Blair trying to railroad the remain campaign. Each side seems to have its fair share of wasters.

 

[MarkE]

A group of scientists, no matter how brilliant they are, would convince me it's best to remain in the eu. I really have no interest in scientific funding. Stephen Hawking was just stating what is important for himself and the scientific community. They have no bearing on what is important to me.
The same with anyone from the financial sector. Why would I take advice from anyone from an industry which had a major impact on the global crash, who's companies were going bankrupt and needed rescuing by the UK taxpayer?

 

[CheltenhamHacker]

A group of scientists, no matter how brilliant they are, would convince me it's best to remain in the eu. I really have no interest in scientific funding. Stephen Hawking was just stating what is important for himself and the scientific community. They have no bearing on what is important to me.
The same with anyone from the financial sector. Why would I take advice from anyone from an industry which had a major impact on the global crash, who's companies were going bankrupt and needed rescuing by the UK taxpayer?

Same question then. Who would you listen to?

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Yep like Blair trying to railroad the remain campaign. Each side seems to have its fair share of wasters.

Did you actually listen to what Blair said in his interview with Nick Robinson on Today this morning. Blair talked about the need for passion from the Remain side - @Ethan posted about 'passion' earlier - and Blair certainly exuded passion in the interview, and when asked if he would take an active part in the debate, finished by saying that he appreciated him doing so would have negatives as well as positives. At no point did I get the feeling that he was attempting to 'railroad' (by which I assume you mean 'coerce') the Remain campaign.

As it happens I think that Blair was an excellent PM - albeit one very severely damaged and forever tarnished by Iraq - and someone who - if we could put our prejudices against him aside and just listen - could make a significant and knowledgeable contribution to the debate.

 

[jp5]

A group of scientists, no matter how brilliant they are, would convince me it's best to remain in the eu. I really have no interest in scientific funding. Stephen Hawking was just stating what is important for himself and the scientific community. They have no bearing on what is important to me.
The same with anyone from the financial sector. Why would I take advice from anyone from an industry which had a major impact on the global crash, who's companies were going bankrupt and needed rescuing by the UK taxpayer?

Probably glad for the influence scientists have had on your life though.

Important for our scientific community to be as effective as possible and they obviously believe EU membership benefits that - and the country as a whole.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

A group of scientists, no matter how brilliant they are, would convince me it's best to remain in the eu. I really have no interest in scientific funding. Stephen Hawking was just stating what is important for himself and the scientific community. They have no bearing on what is important to me.
The same with anyone from the financial sector. Why would I take advice from anyone from an industry which had a major impact on the global crash, who's companies were going bankrupt and needed rescuing by the UK taxpayer?

Well that's alright then - as you have no interest in it, it doesn't matter. Oh well.

 

[Foxholer]

Cheap shot. Make you feel good?

Would have been better if my paragraph stating what Ethan posted (that you therefore only listen to those of the same opinion as yourself) hadn't, through my rush, gone missing!

As for the actual funding, I'm seriously surprised - and then maybe not - at the amount of funding/grants returned by EU as for scientific development. To me, this demonstrates something that is an advantage of the way EU membership can improve/generate developments better than acting individually - and, in this case, is of significant to UK . It is fairly widely recognised that having high numbers of scientific developers/researchers (and pure theoreticians) concentrated together actually magnifies development that might be expected if they were scattered. The world, as well as UK, would be 'the poorer' if this level of funding was lost.

On the other hand, that level of funding coming in must mean that there's, effectively, even more of a difference between what UK puts into the EU and what it receives!

 

[Hobbit]

Same question then. Who would you listen to?

Personally, I'd listen to anyone from either camp who argued intelligently. Dismissing anyone out of hand will only lead to an unbalanced opinion/judgement.

 

[Ethan]

A group of scientists, no matter how brilliant they are, would convince me it's best to remain in the eu. I really have no interest in scientific funding. Stephen Hawking was just stating what is important for himself and the scientific community. They have no bearing on what is important to me.
The same with anyone from the financial sector. Why would I take advice from anyone from an industry which had a major impact on the global crash, who's companies were going bankrupt and needed rescuing by the UK taxpayer?

So you don't want new medicines, diagnostic technology, better tech, better protection against hacking and phishing, faster and safer cars, planes and trains etc etc et-bloody-cetera?

Those who think the EU is just about trading and laws really don't have a clue and are not competent to cast an informed vote.

 

[SocketRocket]

So because some academics do not have very developed social skills then that means any comment from people in universities are not valid?

And to just dismiss his opinion because he does not (in your opinion) have a full grasp on the total picture is again sounding very like you are desperate to dismiss it because it does not agree with your view. His thing is research funding into science, your thing is immigration. You may think the influx of immigrants will ruin this country in the future, he may well think a lack of research into science will ruin this country in the future. Neither of you have a full grasp on all the issues, no one does.

Well actually maybe you think you do, as you seem to saying his conclusion is exaggerated and are arguing with Stephen Hawking's conclusions on science funding. The Stephen Hawking who is the director of science funding at Cambridge university, arguably the best university in the world. Arguing with a man widely acknowledged to be one of the greatest thinkers of our time.

Still, bet his customer focus skills are rubbish and he's no George Galloway.....

My point is that in my opinion we would still work on international research projects if we were not in the EU. We worked on projects with China, India, the USA, Germany, Italy, Denmark, Australia, Japan and many more but the EU was not an influencing factor. Remember again that funding for projects comes from tax payers money not an EU federal treasure chest. Stephen Hawkins is a great thinker but he is not a great business mind, his expertise is mainly academic. I am not trying to take away anything from his achievements but rather suggesting it's not correct to suggest leaving the EU will set back our R@D research.

Also, my interest in this debate is not only about immigration.

 

[SocketRocket]

So you don't want new medicines, diagnostic technology, better tech, better protection against hacking and phishing, faster and safer cars, planes and trains etc etc et-bloody-cetera?

Those who think the EU is just about trading and laws really don't have a clue and are not competent to cast an informed vote.

Are you suggesting R@D in this country is mainly or only funded from the EU, or if we left the EU research collaboration would end?

Your last paragraph is unbelievably elitist.

 

[MarkE]

So you don't want new medicines, diagnostic technology, better tech, better protection against hacking and phishing, faster and safer cars, planes and trains etc etc et-bloody-cetera?

Those who think the EU is just about trading and laws really don't have a clue and are not competent to cast an informed vote.

You think all that is reliant on remaining in the eu? What a blinkered view.
Unlike you, I believe everybody is entitled to an equal vote, not just the stay lobby. I could insult you, but prefer not to lower myself to your level.
That seems to be the 'stay' way though, just try to belittle the 'leave' side.

 

[MarkE]

Same question then. Who would you listen to?

Anyone who could give concise and cogent arguments. So far I here more of that from the 'leave' side.

 

[CheltenhamHacker]

Anyone who could give concise and cogent arguments. So far I here more of that from the 'leave' side.

What is it about the messages from scientists and financial experts isn't concise and cogent?

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

What is it about the messages from scientists and financial experts isn't concise and cogent?

...and those from the environmentalists and conservationists.

 

[MarkE]

What is it about the messages from scientists and financial experts isn't concise and cogent?

Nothing. All makes perfect sense to them, but of little relevance to myself and my family. Again, why would I agree with the financial experts after the hash they have made of their own industry?