Off Topic Impact of Brexit on Football

JKC That map you show is wrong. That island marked Malta is in fact Sicily, Malta is that little island to the south east of Sicily. There is nothing to beat accuracy.

Talking of accuracy,
In the United Kingdom, the planned June referendum on European Union membership has already created uncertainty for investors; a ‘Brexit’ could do severe regional and global damage by disrupting established trading relationships,”

I note your wording "could" not "would". Now that is what I call real scaremongering."

 

At the end of the day both you and I have made our minds up mate and whatever we both post is not going to change our minds. It's the 'waverers' that need convincing either way

 

Not my wording, the IMF's.

As for the map, you're quite right, but the rest of the map is accurate in displaying the point I was making.

 

Yes. We desperately need the EU. We might be the fifth largest economy in the world, but we are less than 2/3s the size of Japan, less than a 1/3 of China, around a 1/6 of the US and less than 1/6 of the EU combined.

We are, I am afraid, pretty small fry on the geopolitical pan. The difference is that with the EU at our backs, we can actually command a serious amount of influence. Petty isolationism put China back 500 years.

I don't doubt for a minute that the EU needs us, but we definitely need them more. And them needing us is a good thing - we already have the absolute best position in Europe in terms of what legislation we cherry pick, and we can force through just about anything we put our minds to.

The EU is not perfect, far from it, but with the rising sabre-rattling in the East, we need a united Europe more than ever. Russia is licking its lips, frankly.

Vote in is a vote for our future as a leading nation in Europe and the world. Vote out is a vote for our future on our own and having to be reliant on others' mercy and goodwill. Some might like that. I don't. I believe in uniting.


But as I said, I get that a lot of voters won't care about that, because they don't really "feel" a significant drop in GDP etc

 

KFC you published it here on this forum, you take responsibility for the publishing of the scaremongering. You were quite happy to use the scaremongering to back your opinion.

 

The thing is KIO, I haven't made my mind up 100%. Not until I've read as much as I possibly can in order to make an informed decision.

 

We are to the US in terms of wealth and power what Austria is to us.

We really are small and while I am proud of our history, it is better we face up to the reality of our present and realise that we simply cannot go it alone.

The EU, culturally, is perfect for us, geographically too. It is the wealthiest region on earth. We should harness that.

The worst thing to do is be sort of half in, half out.

 

I'm not sure who 'KFC' is ...

If you consider the reporting of the IMF as 'scaremongering', then fair enough. I'll just post exactly what the IMF is here:


The International Monetary Fund (IMF) is an organization of 188 countries, working to foster global monetary cooperation, secure financial stability, facilitate international trade, promote high employment and sustainable economic growth, and reduce poverty around the world.

Created in 1945, the IMF is governed by and accountable to the 188 countries that make up its near-global membership.

 

Of course.

I work in science. Between 2007-2013, the UK gave £78bn to the EU, of which £5.4 bn was earmarked for R&D. The EU funds science based on merit, so the UK does quite well out of the EU R&D budget - over that period we were awarding grants totalling £8.8bn.

Leave the EU and obviously that bonus goes, cutting our funding to ~60% of it's current figure. Funding tends to be awarded in blocks of around 5 years, so 5 years after we leave the EU, jobs are going to start drying up. You can make the argument that leaving the EU would free up funds to match the current investment from the EU, but that's unlikely to reflect reality. The EU's funding of science has doubled in that stated period, whilst the UK research councils have had to fight tooth-and-nail for their funding to stay the same. Over the last 15 years, successive governments have not seen scientific research as worthy of significant investment, despite the fact it has been shown that investing in fundamental science brings sizeable gains to the economy. I can't find the figures, but I've seen quoted that £1 of government investment equates to an economic benefit of £40. Rather than look at what this country achieves scientifically and imagine what could be achieved with more, I've seen government officials muse publicly that cutting UK science funding would spur scientists to achieve the same amount with less. There's no indication that whoever is in government would make any effort to support British science as well as the EU currently does, never mind match the EUs plans for increased funding.

So that's the financial argument, there's also the additional difficulties that Brexit would bring to international collaborations. When the EU funds projects, many grants cover multiple institutions in different countries. Brexit would mean that for the UK to maintain the same degree of collaborations, we would have to get funds for the UK end of the project awarded separately. Winning that grant is a second lottery the overall project has to win, and where possible you'd quite rightly expect EU countries to seek EU collaborators.

So those are the arguments on a large scale, on a personal scale the freedom to move and work around the EU will offer me many more opportunities than I will get within the UK. I'll stand a better chance of a decent career within the EU than out of it. There's other areas of our EU involvement where I have concerns, but they're of a secondary nature.

Given all that, it's highly unsurprising that Brexit is massive unpopular with scientists. I've seen polls showing anything from 80-95% of scientists backing a "remain" vote.

 

This is what makes the whole debate quite fascinating but irrelevant up to a point. Career politicians or born con-artists posing as politicians will only do what is best for their back pocket (sadly I really do believe that these days)

I am not suggesting that the scientists would vote to stay in solely to keep their funding and job security but you can't help thinking along those lines. If that were the case then all votes will be based on emotion and no right or wrong, more right or wrong for the UK (whatever that actually is) but for the individual voter and what their personal gain or loss may be.

 

It's not so much the half-in, half-out that annoys me about our current relationship with the EU, it's the way we fail to harness it to our own need properly. Of our 73 MEPs, at least the 24 from UKIP only turn up to vote against anything that gives the EU any more powers, and refuse to take part in any other debate. I don't have a problem with the UKIP MEPs doing what they were elected to do, but they dramatically limit our influence in the European parliament. In contrast, Germany have only 1 MEP aligned with the eurosceptic group Farage heads in europe, so their remaining MEPs have much greater influence.

 

JKC not Kentucky Fried Chicken.

I know what the IMF is but it doesn't alter the fact they say COULD. Unless they say definitely it would change things then it is just as you said hyperbole. Could is a probability, not a fact.

 

Wait, what? Saying it 'could' prove damaging is hyperbole now?
Are you suggesting there is zero chance of Brexit causing such damage?

 

It's certainly an interesting debate, and in it's entirety I think it's too overwhelming and full of unknowns to make an informed decision on whether Brexit is right for the country as a whole. Whenever an organisation publishes an attempt to answer the question analytically, those who disagree with the outcome inevitably jump to criticise the assumptions that have had to be made. There's few objective facts that everyone agrees with on the economic pros and cons of Brexit, and one of the biggest unknowns is how "vindictive" the EU could be in negotiating our exit. You can't see them wanting to bend over backwards to accommodate us, as they don't want to encourage other independence movements.

 

DHC bor, just to clarify your figures.
UK gave £78bn to the EU, of which £5.4 bn was earmarked for R&D. The EU funds science based on merit, so the UK does quite well out of the EU R&D budget - over that period we were awarding grants totalling £8.8bn.

Question. £5.4bn earmarked, who made the decision for this figure, Britain or EU.
NB. We gave £78bn, but only received back £8.8bn. Do you know where the other £59.2bn went or was this our total contribution to the EU for the period you specified and used by the EU for other purposes.

I know your feeling regarding lack of assistance given by past governments. Have witnessed at first hand our governments of both persuasions lack of confidence in our scientific engineers, The Pendulum Train was nearly completed in Derby but Thatcher withdrew the funding. Italy and Japan took up our ideas and produced their versions.

 

JKC Are you suggesting there is zero chance of Brexit causing such damage?
It appears you are to raise the question, I didn't. Copy the full statement not just the part you like.

DHC bor, your remarks add a bit of sanity to this debate. It is as you infer, an unknown situation that will be resolved on June 23rd and we will just have to take it on from there.

 

Err... no. No I'm not. I was saying that the statement "Brexit could be economically damaging on a regional and global level" is not hyperbolic.

 

Gotta love a bit of politicking on this forum, eh bors?

 

If this thread had been on QI it would have involved that card with a question mark on it!

NOBODY KNOWS!

 

JKC Obviously you don't know the meaning of COULD. If that is not an exaggeration then pray tell me because it is not a factual statement the IMF made. It COULD BE THE OPPOSITE TO WHAT THEY SAY, they are just saying it could and then again it could not. HAVE YOU GOT IT YET ?