UK Seeks Science Collaboration Further Afield After EU Freeze (bloomberg.com) 81
The UK is rattling off a series of international science agreements with a message to the European Union: if you don't want our money, we'll do deals elsewhere. From a report: Prime Minister Boris Johnson signed a memorandum of understanding with his New Zealand counterpart, Jacinda Ardern, on Friday, aimed at easing UK access to the Pacific nation's quantum and agricultural technology. The UK has already negotiated similar agreements with Israel, Switzerland and Canada -- as well as EU member Sweden, and is hoping to seal more with Japan, Singapore, South Korea and certain US states. The drive comes as the government seeks to diversify the country's scientific collaboration after the UK was frozen out of the EU's $96 billion Horizon research program because of tensions stemming from Britain's plan to override the part of the Brexit deal governing Northern Ireland. The majority of the UK's international science budget -- around $18 billion -- is usually spent helping to fund Horizon.
Brexit means Brexit? (Score:5, Interesting)
Was not it something like this?
No EU a la carte...
Re:Brexit means Brexit? (Score:5, Informative)
Yeah. Of course the EU wants the UK's money, they never wanted the UK to leave in the first place. But the EU science program is for EU nations. You don't get to cancel your club membership card and then complain when you're not allowed in the clubhouse.
Honestly this is getting embarrassing for them. Boris Johnson and his worthless ilk have no shame and won't be satisfied until the UK's reputation is utterly destroyed.
I mean more destroyed than it already is.
Re: Brexit means Brexit? (Score:4)
Really trade was down 11% last year as a direct result of Brexit. I am struggling to understand how thats good for the UK
Re: Brexit means Brexit? (Score:5, Insightful)
If we're going to have a reasonable adult discussion about Brexit instead of the usual trollfest, we should start with acknowledging that it was always going to be a net loss for a while immediately after the separation. It wasn't politically acceptable to acknowledge that during the campaigns but anyone with any knowledge of international trade, diplomacy and economics knew. The real question is whether the long-term shift in the UK's strategy will pay off or not and no-one can honestly say they know the answer to that one.
Even before Brexit the UK had already been doing an increasing proportion of its trade with non-EU members for a long time. In those cases the protectionist policies of the EU actually hurt more than they help. But you can't take advantage of being released from those policies overnight. There would be a transition period. New agreements would need to be made. Businesses and others affected would need to take advantage of any opportunities those new agreements create. And only then, after each of those phases that would probably take several years, would the UK see the full benefits, whatever they turned out to be.
It's perfectly reasonable to argue that that meant the UK would suffer some big costs to Brexit immediately but potentially have to wait a decade or more to see whether the benefits would eventually outweigh those costs. And if you thought that was too long to wait for an uncertain outcome then it was perfectly reasonable to vote Remain.
But it's a bit disingenuous to argue that Brexit Is Bad(TM) because the immediate consequences were a net loss. That was always going to be the case, and as it turned out, it's been almost impossible to reliably work out what those consequences were anyway thanks to COVID, Russia, etc.
Re: Brexit means Brexit? (Score:5, Insightful)
If we're going to have a reasonable adult discussion about Brexit instead of the usual trollfest, we should start with acknowledging that it was always going to be a net loss for a while immediately after the separation.
"a while". 50 years according to some of the most ardent Brexiters.
https://www.theguardian.com/po... [theguardian.com]
It wasn't politically acceptable to acknowledge that during the campaigns
That's a lot of long words for saying they lied about it.
But it's a bit disingenuous to argue that Brexit Is Bad(TM) because the immediate consequences were a net loss.
Well, that's just one of the many reasons Brexit is bad. The immediate consequences are bad. The medium term consequences are bad. Even Brexiters think the long term consequences are bad. But apparently the very very long term consequences might be OK.
Re: (Score:2)
50 years according to some of the most ardent Brexiters.
Jacob Rees-Mogg seen being out of touch. News at 11.
Objectively the time frame for the transition was known, the minimum realistic time frame for making useful trade deals or other partnerships was also known and deals with larger partners might take longer, and then you have to allow at least a couple of years for anyone who might benefit to adapt to new opportunities. That would be around the 10-15 year range to see any really fundamental changes in the economic and social landscape as a result, of course
Re: Brexit means Brexit? (Score:4, Interesting)
Jacob Rees-Mogg seen being out of touch. News at 11.
Don't try and weasel out. Out of touch with who exactly?
But I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to above. Did anyone in the Leave campaigns ever seriously claim that there would be new and dramatically better trade deals overnight
Yes.
"The day after we vote to leave, we hold all the cards and we can choose the path we wantâ." - M. Gove
seriously do you not remember all this shit?
Almost everyone on both sides was at best exaggerating their case and ignoring the legitimate points of the other side throughout the whole campaign.
False equivalence. Both sides being imperfect does not mean both were equally bad. The remain campaign had nothing on the scale of the £350 million a week lie which was the headline of the leave campaign. The Turkey scaremongering?
What about Northern Ireland. Let's see what the prime liar had to say about it... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-... [bbc.co.uk] hmm. How's that going? Well, we now have a de-facto border in the Irish sea and it's still not sorted out.
And the biggest claims from the Remain campaign were varieties of how it would suck economically. We didn't go into recession overnight. On the other hand, we're doing worse now than all comparable countries. One can try and blame the pandemic, but everyone else had a pandemic too.
Oh also something about a threat to peace in Europe. Glad that never came to pass. What you say now? Putin who? No, I'm not claiming that it was a direct result, but neither can anyone claim that part of "project fear" didn't turn out to be "project reality".
And also, don't forget, the leave campaign also broke the rules to the extent that had it been a binding referendum it would have had to be rerun by law.
Re: (Score:1)
What is it with people quoting Michael Gove in this discussion? The other guy posted the standard misquote propaganda. You're quoting the "choose our path" soundbite and effectively equating it with a claim that we'd somehow magically be at the end of the path immediately.
Both sides being imperfect does not mean both were equally bad.
That is certainly true.
The remain campaign had nothing on the scale of the £350 million a week lie which was the headline of the leave campaign.
And that is very debatable. Ignoring the political foolishness of the Leave side, do you really think anyone would have read a different argument if they'd used an accurate net contribution figure that was still in n
Re: (Score:2)
You're quoting the "choose our path" soundbite and effectively equating it with a claim that we'd somehow magically be at the end of the path immediately.
Oh so he didn't say "we hold all the cards". Hun because I could have sworn he did.
Leave side, do you really think anyone would have read a different argument if they'd used an accurate net contribution figure that was still in nine figures on those buses instead?
Meanwhile the Remain side predicted economic meltdown (hasn't happened, at least not due to Br
Re: (Score:2)
Oh so he didn't say "we hold all the cards".
Maybe he did, but that also wasn't what we were talking about. We were talking about whether prominent Leave campaigners were predicting that we'd have new and dramatically better trade deals overnight, in the context of whether anyone who'd looked into the realities always knew it would take years to realise any potential benefits of that kind.
Of course lots of Brexiteers were predicting that we'd have more autonomy and that would give us some other options. That was one of the big points of Brexit. And ye
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe he did, but that also wasn't what we were talking about. We were talking about whether prominent Leave campaigners were predicting that we'd have new and dramatically better trade deals overnight,
Except yes it is.
Well, that didn't happen.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, that didn't happen.
Johnson's comment about the deal with the US was one of the dafter things he's said, for sure, and presumably based on some backroom chat with Trump that they didn't have the power to pull off in the end. Of course it was also something he said long after the referendum itself.
Now if we're genuinely looking for a balanced review here, let's also remember that before the referendum we had Obama's not-at-all-choreographed comment about the UK going to the back of the queue for a trade deal. It was of course c
Re: (Score:2)
Johnson's comment about the deal with the US was one of the dafter things he's said, for sure, and presumably based on some backroom chat with Trump that they didn't have the power to pull off in the end. Of course it was also something he said long after the referendum itself.
Nope!
https://www.theguardian.com/po... [theguardian.com]
You're actively rewriting history in your own head to make it more balanced.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe I'm missing something here. What in that article do you think is different to what I just described before?
It mentions Obama's "back of the queue" comment before the referendum and Brexit campaigners objecting that he wouldn't be in power to make that call. That's exactly the point I was making before.
There's a vague reference to claims of some Brexit campaigners that Britain would easily be able to negotiate a fresh trade deal with the US. However it doesn't mention any specific claim by Johnson or a
Re: (Score:2)
Oh for heaven's sake. I cited a reputable news source. Here's the actual video since you're determined to nitpick to the greatest extent possible:
https://www.theguardian.com/po... [theguardian.com]
Johnson claimed before Brexit we could strike a trade deal with the US. And will you please stop banging on about Trump? He wasn't even president then.
As I said, my interest in these discussions is in forming a genuinely balanced opinion
Balance does not mean "rewrite history so both sides are equal".
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The real question is whether the long-term shift in the UK's strategy will pay off or not and no-one can honestly say they know the answer to that one.
Basically everyone with any knowledge on the matter said no it won't. Something along the lines of a decimation of negotiating power compared to being part of a large trading bloc, and adding barriers to entry to your most tightly interlinked (reads: highest volume) trading partner. The only way Brexit wasn't going to be a long term fail is if they had a free trade agreement with the EU, which is one of the things which was promised as part of Brexit, which the same people with knowledge on the matter said
Re: (Score:1)
No, they didn't. You can't have a sensible discussion when you start off from that kind of absolutist nonsense.
Yes they did. You're right, we can't have a sensible discussion when you're being completely revisionist. Precisely none of the expert opinions have changed on the medium - long term consequences of Brexit. They are the same now as they always were.
Anyway you're right sensible isn't your thing clearly so there's no point reading the rest of your post.
Re: (Score:2)
You're claiming that every single expert in every relevant field said that Brexit won't be a net win eventually? That no professional economists or senior figures in the armed forces or veteran diplomats thought Brexit would have some upsides or remaining some disadvantages?
Re: (Score:2)
It's also worth pointing out how bad the post-brexit trade deals are. The one with Japan is typical - it's the EU's deal rolled over, except for one important change. The UK gets what is left over from the EU's quota. If the EU uses all of it, we get nothing. The Japanese were not willing to give us any extra, they set the quota based on what would be fair to their producers and aren't going to alter it for us.
Then you have the Australia and New Zealand deals. They can hardly believe what they got, those de
Re: (Score:2)
If we're going to have a reasonable adult discussion about Brexit instead of the usual trollfest, we should start with acknowledging that it was always going to be a net loss for a while immediately after the separation. It wasn't politically acceptable to acknowledge that during the campaigns but anyone with any knowledge of international trade, diplomacy and economics knew. The real question is whether the long-term shift in the UK's strategy will pay off or not and no-one can honestly say they know the answer to that one.
If we are going to have an adult conversation about Brexit, we really should start with the fact that none of the Brexiteers predictions have come true and pretty much all of the remainer predictions have.
We need to admit that there have been no tangible benefits to Brexit whilst our economies have in the best of times lagged behind our European neighbours and now times are getting bad, our economy is suffering far in excess of theirs.
Then we need to admit we were lied to about Brexit by it's architec
Re: (Score:2)
If we are going to have an adult conversation about Brexit, we really should start with the fact that none of the Brexiteers predictions have come true and pretty much all of the remainer predictions have.
Why start from a readily debunked position?
From this June 2016 LSE article [lse.ac.uk] about the regrettable negative campaigning by both sides in the run up to the referendum:
Recent predictions have included a cost of £4,300 a year for every household, wage drop of £38 a week, the loss of 100,000 manufacturing jobs, a 10-18% drop in house prices and higher mortgage rates, two more years of austerity, an increase of £230 on the average family holiday, loss of women’s rights, an ‘instant DIY recession’ and 500,000 more unemployed, amongst others.
Many of those predictions are still wildly inaccurate even today. Several aren't even in the right direction, with house prices holding up perhaps a bit too well in recent years and employment at close to the lowest it's been in 50 years. The ones that are more realistic like higher mortgage rates and a big drop in household incomes (in real term
Re: (Score:1)
Do you have a citation for that? From the UK Office of National Statistics:
Annual imports and exports in 2021 have increased by 8.4% and 4.9% respectively compared with 2020
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy... [ons.gov.uk]
Re: (Score:3)
Because COVID.
You know...shutdowns, supply chain, layoffs, people changing jobs, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
He said:
Really trade was down 11% last year as a direct result of Brexit
Last year was 2021. Trade was not down in 2021 compared to 2020. Supposing he had said something like "Trade was down 11% in 2021 compared to 2018" then he may have had a valid point.
https://www.theguardian.com/bu... [theguardian.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Sure you can. You can do whatever you want. As you said, everyone wants money.
... he declared confidentially in an article about how the EU didn't take the money and the UK didn't get what it wanted. It was at this point a single braincell grew in rsillvergun's (a troll not to be confused with rsilvergun) head which thought: "Actually I look like a real idiot when I post on Slashdot." But that braincell was quickly killed and rsillvergun proceeded to claim that the shitshow of Brexit which has netted not a single positive figure in any measure of a country's success.
Re: (Score:3)
And associated nations, e.g. Israel. If I remember right, the deal is that EU nations pay into the pot depending on the size of their economy, but they can take out as much money as their research teams can win in the competitive application process. The UK used to get more money for science out of this scheme than it put in. However, associated nations have to pay for thier end of any research programmes, the benefit being that they can be part of large fund
Re: (Score:2)
The Horizon scheme was supposed to be negotiated after the Withdrawal Agreement was put in place. The EU insisted on the order of things: The island of Ireland first, then EU citizen's rights, then the terms of leaving, and finally continued membership of things like Horizon.
The UK is stuck at the terms of leaving part because it's now trying to undo the Withdrawal Agreement, and a trade war with the EU is looming.
The other issue is that because the UK failed to negotiate any kind easier access to the EU fo
Re: (Score:2)
But the EU science program is for EU nations.
Of course, this isn't actually true. Horizon has a mechanism for non-EU member states to participate and sometimes they actually do. This was explicitly contemplated for a post-Brexit UK before the referendum, too.
The UK's problem is that it's still an EU-controlled programme at the end of the day, so if Boris and his chums want to rock the boat over other parts of the Brexit deal, they don't have much right to complain when the EU pushes back.
It's all very unfortunate because this unnecessary division will
Re: (Score:2)
Well, so far, it hasn't worked out that way. So far, the UK has got what the EU wants to give it.
So, you are right, everything is up for negotiation now, where as before it was given. But that cuts in both directions.
Re: (Score:2)
The EU actually agreed to bring the UK into Horizon as part of the Brexit agreement.
From the EU Website:
How will the UK be associated to Horizon Europe?
Through the Trade and Cooperation Agreement between the EU and the UK (TCA). All
aspects of the UK association to Horizon Europe were agreed on 24 December 2020 in the
TCA and documents attached to the Agreement. The association will enter into force through
the formal adoption of a Protocol that is already agreed in principle. No additional
negotiations are for
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This might come as a shock to you, but there is no Great Britain, they lost their colonies and now is just a grouping of locals who don't really get along with each other. Scotland will be leaving the carcass next.
Re: Very positive news (Score:5, Insightful)
Scotland is not "subsidised" by England. The problem is if Tesco makes some profit from a store in Aberdeen that is booked as tax revenue in London. Now clearly thats cobblers, but multiply that by hundreds of companies that operate across the UK but are headquartered in London and you get the picture of how London appears based on tax receipts to be some sort of economic powerhouse in the UK. Of course as London is in England it also artificially inflates the figures for England too. The reality is that it is bollocks and without the rest of the UK, London would be rapidly impoverished and without the rest of the UK England would not appear so good either.
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting theory. Do you have any numbers to back that up?
Thing is, London is 3x the population of Scotland and 1/4 of the population of the entire UK. With our without your theory it is going to be massively dominant, because it's a huge proportion of the people and jobs. And London salaries are 1.2x higher than Scotland, which means the amount of money, in London and circulating in London is substantially higher.
Re: (Score:2)
Thing is, London is 3x the population of Scotland and 1/4 of the population of the entire UK. With our without your theory it is going to be massively dominant
That's not disputed. The claim is that Scotland is a drain. With less people there should also be less costs. The official numbers indicate that Scotland is a net loss [parliament.uk]. But if there are taxes being toted up in London which are collected in Scotland, that could throw things off, so it does matter whether it's true or not.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't have figures because nobody collects those figures and the Treasury are not keen to collect those figures because it suits their narrative that everything outside the south east of England is a drain on the south east.
It is however beyond dispute that the taxes for firms operating across the whole of the UK are booked wherever those firms are headquartered. Given that firms are disproportionately headquartered in the south east of England in and around London it makes the figures about whether regio
Re: (Score:2)
Tesco's headquarters are in Welwyn Garden City (Hertfordshire), not London.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Tesco's headquarters are in Welwyn Garden City (Hertfordshire), not London.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Ahhh yes that well known Scottish town of Welwyn Garden City....
In the purest sense, you're right. In the wider sense, it doesn't matter. The point is whether it's London or Welwyn, NEITHER of those revenues will be counted in Scotland.
Re: (Score:2)
I would add that I was trying to keep it so an international audience would be able to follow. So most people outside the UK would have no idea where Welwyn Garden City is (I suspect a lot of people inside the UK won't either), but for the purposes of illustrating the argument Tesco's headquarters is sufficiently close to the centre of London (20m/32km as the crow flies) that it can be taken as counting as London. I would argue that most people in the North of England or Scotland would consider Welwyn Gard
Re: Very positive news (Score:2)
This might come as a shock in your ignorance but there very much is a Great Britain. It exists as two things firstly the largest island of the British Isles and secondly as the political combination of England, Wales and Scotland, the vast bulk of which all lie on the island of Great Britain.
Re: (Score:1)
This might come as a shock in your ignorance but there very much is a Great Britain.
Eh, I mean, it's okay, but great? Maybe in its heyday, when it was running around picking on brown people who didn't have a navy.
Re: Very positive news (Score:2)
The Great in Britain refers entirely to the name of the largest island in the British Isles. The island on which I am currently located has been called Great Britain since antiquity. I am talking pre Roman invasion here. Only the truely ignorant think it has anything to do with Britain been a "great" nation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Eh, I mean, it's okay, but great?
Yes, as opposed to Brittany, which is the small one.
Re: Very positive news (Score:2)
Unlike the USA who picked off their brown natives with guns and smallpox then enslaved the ones from africa who didnt get full rights until the 1960s, only about 100 years after most European nations. Glass houses ,much?
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Britain: "Let's leave the EU, because going it alone is better for us. We will have more money for the NHS if we stop participating in the EU!!!"
Idiots on the internet: "Clearly it is the EU who is playing politics with science."
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Idiots on the internet: "Clearly it is the EU who is playing politics with science."
Well, that is exactly what's happening, so it's not just the idiots saying that. But of course Boris and co were playing politics with Northern Ireland first, so it's hard to blame the EU for responding in kind. Everyone's playing politics and that's why we can't have nice things. :-(
Re: (Score:1)
Take some responsibility for your actions. The concept of leaving an agreement and then not getting the benefits of that agreement is pretty basic. The reaction to someone not holding up their end of an agreement is not "playing politics".
Re: (Score:2)
Except of course that the UK hasn't actually broken the agreement at this point. It has threatened to do things that might break the agreement (or might not) but hasn't yet done any of them. One of the big questions right now is whether the UK could legally justify invoking Article 16 given what we now know of the actual economic consequences of the agreement for NI.
Just in case everyone has forgotten, the only party to the agreement that has actually invoked Article 16 so far was the EU. And the only party
Re: (Score:2)
IIUC, they *have* broken the agreement, in the sense that they have not performed actions that they were legally obligated to perform. I believe that there was often a specific timeline, but (again IIUC) even some things that were not on a timeline the UK government has taken the stance that "we aren't going to do that". (Most of these that I'm aware of involve Northern Ireland, and my information dates back over 6 months, to when I was paying a bit of attention.)
Re: (Score:2)
Fair enough, you might well be right on the some of the earlier tardiness, and without checking the wording I don't know whether that breached the protocol. But all the stuff that's been making headlines in recent months around "unilaterally rewriting the NI protocol" or similar headlines hasn't actually happened (yet).
Re: Very positive news (Score:2)
Boris is all hot air and BS, he hasn't actually done anything yet. Even so the EU decided to play nasty and screw over scientific research because of something that MIGHT happen. They're like bitter children.
Re: (Score:2)
Countries make mistakes, get over yourself. The EU is certainly stepping up to the plate now.
Re: (Score:2)
"That was intentional, not just a mistake."
So to be clear, the people you say have not learned a thing are actually playing some kind of 4D chess where they were planning for Russia to invade Ukraine so that they could institute a global new order or something?
Re: Good (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because, if the EU were dissolved, then suddenly the members states would stop buying Russian gas? I am not sure that makes any sense.
The mistake the EU made was one of constructive engagement with Russia. It hasn't worked out well. In terms of energy policy, the EU has been warned that it's policies were causing dangerous climate change years ago. And, yet, alongside every other developed country we have kept on doing in. With more effort earlier on, we could have increased out renewable output many fold w
A national embarrassment (Score:5, Insightful)
Brexit and Boris and co are a national embarrassment. One can only laugh, and wonder just how much of a train wreck we'll end up in. Hopefully at lot of people will learn lessons about the futility of xenophobia, the dire consequences of economic and political naivety, and what happens if you listen to populist politicians rather than people who actually know what they're talking about. I do wonder just how much of a delusional bunch of nutjobs we have for a government.
Re: (Score:2)
Hope is good, but it's better to invest it where there might be a payoff.
Re: (Score:2)
Brexit and Boris and co are a national embarrassment. One can only laugh, and wonder just how much of a train wreck we'll end up in. Hopefully at lot of people will learn lessons about the futility of xenophobia, the dire consequences of economic and political naivety, and what happens if you listen to populist politicians rather than people who actually know what they're talking about. I do wonder just how much of a delusional bunch of nutjobs we have for a government.
I believe the next general election will be a fight over Brexit. It will be between whoever replaces Boris Johnson and whoever replaces Kier Starmer (I like the guy, sure he's got no personality but he seems to have a grasp on how to run a government where as the bombastic personalities like Boris seem to be out of their depth in a shallow puddle, sadly no personality means unelectable these days). The Conservatives are going to hold off replacing Boris until the last minute (which is 2 years away) because
Delusional (Score:1)
Re: Delusional (Score:2)
Actually the UK is the 2nd biggest financial market after the USA but dont let facts get in the way of your sneering.
Quick count of Nobel Physics prizes (Score:1)
Looks like you have lost quite a few... (Score:3)
I have counted 57 Nobel laureates in physics.
Out of this purely British (not Russian imigrating to UK, no other citizenship, not emigrated to the US) are 3
Higgs
Thouless
Penrose
Temporary (Score:1)
Re:Temporary (Score:4, Interesting)
I wouldn't say this is a given. But, I do think that many other countries, particularly the ones in the EU have largely given up on the current British government and are just waiting for it to change. Not because of it's ideology but just because of it's general incompetence and trustworthiness. That might not get better with the next government but at least they can try again.
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't say this is a given. But, I do think that many other countries, particularly the ones in the EU have largely given up on the current British government and are just waiting for it to change. Not because of it's ideology but just because of it's general incompetence and trustworthiness. That might not get better with the next government but at least they can try again.
Most people in the UK are waiting for the government to change too.
Pacific nation's quantum and agricultural technolo (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)