Brit Science Minister to probe Brexit bias against UK-based scientists

Re: Boo fucking hoo

@imanidiot: If brexit doesn't happen - for real not some half assed smoke&mirrors that fools only politicians - your country will have bigger problems to worry about than science funding or EU staff feeling intimidated. And I mean from your own voters. What the EU chooses to do if you try delaying will look insignificant in comparison.

@Lars: an actually informed population will require undoing 30+ years of press bias and outright lies (mostly thanks to BJ finding it more fun than actual reporting). Never going to happen and we'd need to reform our demockeracy, both in parliament and by hanging enough press barons, first.

Re: Boo fucking hoo

Well, article 50 has not been invoked yet the value of the pound has fallen. That's because markets are trying to asses and take account of the risk that it will be invoked: this increases the chance of bad financial things happening in the UK and therefore makes the things denominated in pounds cheaper.

This is exactly the same thing: since there is a significant chance of problems with the UK participation in various projects the rational thing to do is to have less UK participation to reduce the chance of such problems. This isn't discrimination, it's rational behaviour.

Re: Boo fucking hoo - Held to Ransom?

UK net contribution to EU is still going on, every day, so where's the ransom?

Re: It's the law, isn't it

Dan 55: "Or projects already started before the exit date are funded till their completion.

Not too difficult."

So who would underwrite that?

Europe has already stated the rules - consortia must have organisations from 3 EU member countries. So Europe wouldn't underwrite it.

The consortia can't underwrite it (otherwise they wouldn't need the grant).

That only leaves the UK government - who would need to underwrite the entire value of the project for all members, not just the UK members.

In what way is this "not too difficult"?

Re: "EU rules still apply until we've actually left."

So reform the EU. You have the power (and have had for years) to do something about it.

You have a legally elected EU parliament. Commisioners who propose law that are put in place by your legally elected government, with oversight of the European Council featuring your PM an elected MP). Overseen (quite rightly) by independent judges, the same as you had in the UK before, and will have again if the UK leaves ( Google 'how the EU works)

Stop whining and trying to scare people with your media hyped 'sensational' numbers. You can probably prove the moon is made of cheese if you look hard enough for some mumbers.

How about most of the older voters who voted to leave based on fears of immigration who actually came from areas where there is barely anyone without a white skin and are least affected ? And the 'less well educated' who think 'immigration' took their jobs when in fact a large chunk was due to globalisation, moving production to places like China. The same people who have a house full of Chinese goods cos they like 'cheap' (regrettably lost the link to the study but its out there along with many others)

Yes the EU needs a kick up the arse, and a shame no one really cared before from the looks of EU election turn out (where your vote counts more due to PR than it does in the UK elections).

But if you don't like the way it is then vote to change it. Don't just vote to run away. That's what cowards do.

Re: "EU rules still apply until we've actually left."

Well, this just appalls and disgusts me no end!

"£179 towards a hemp farm"

Should've been at least three more digits on that amount!

Re: "EU rules still apply until we've actually left."

>The EU spent around £860million of public money on the schemes between 2007-13 from its multi-billion pound budget, to which the UK is the second biggest contributor after Germany.

And how does that compare with the >£25bn wasted by the British governments on failed IT projects within the last decade or so?

Or the very generous terms available during privatisation sell-offs, which deprive the UK's tax payers of further billions from the sale of infrastructure we already own.

Or the billions "outsourced" in dodgy private contracts for everything from benefits management to school academies to PFI for the NHS?

Or the billions in uncollected tax from some of our highest earning companies.

Compared to the UK, the EU is a model of efficiency and honesty.

They spend money. We burn it alive.

Re: It's the law, isn't it

Just guarantee to underwrite the UK part of the funding from the £350 million per week that the country will have as disposable income after quitting EU........

Oh wait.....

You mean there isn't £350m? Oh gawd what am I like!

Re: It's the law, isn't it

"This is precisely the kind of thing that needs to be negotiated. You know, in the negotiations."

There will be no negotiating. Listening is what Airstrip One will do. They will obey or they will be left out in the cold to die. End of.

Exactly what cards do you think Airstrip One holds here? Exactly what does the EU need from Airstrip One that it's politicians would ever be willing to give up? Not a damned thing.

Airstrip One will leave, it will get fucking nothing, and it can come beg for scraps at the door like everyone else when it is ready to act like a grown up.

There is absolutely zero benefit to the EU giving Airstrip One a special anything. Actual allies - like Canada - take decades to negotiate trade agreements, and both sides end up making concessions. Airstrip One has a list of demands as long as my leg and no intention of conceding anything. This doesn't help the EU at all.

If the EU gives an inch to Airstrip One then they are encouraging the other racist xenophobes within the EU, and that's political rukus nobody needs at the moment. Also: any concessions the EU gives Airstrip One could be used against them by other trading partners in their negotiations.

No...Airstrip One will be made example of. And rightly so.

Re: FUD

'Anything short term before article 50 is even invoked is pure FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt) based on pretty much nothing at all except "well something MIGHT happen"'

I think it's based on on "nothing might happen".

Re: Shock

Interesting how the very people to claim the economy will be damaged are the ones who damaged it and then blame brexit. How do we have economic confidence in people purposefully and wilfully damaging our economy? And now they try to undo the damage they caused by saying exactly what we were saying in the first place.

Who should I believe then? Some random bloke on the Register forums, or Mark Carney, governor of the Bank of England (post-Brexit statements).

Hmmm, let me think.... (strokes imaginary beard).