[cherdano]

 mike777, on 2016-July-12, 14:11, said:

As far as the Trump bashing goes it just seems like one more personal attack on the man.
saying he hates people of color(racist) and women pretty much ends the conversation.

That's besides the point. The question isn't whether Trump is racist. Either he is one, or he plays one in public.

Quote

Saying that is why people support him because hates people of color and women attacks the voters.

The majority of Republicans say that discrimination against Whites is at least as big a problem today in the USA as discrimination against minorities.
Would it be more PC to say that such views might explain voting for Trump?

[Zelandakh]

 onoway, on 2016-July-12, 13:30, said:

This is clearly a sop to the chem-ag people, as the vast majority of people want GMO labelling and the politicians KNOW that but are ignoring it as best they can. This is not any sort of meaningful representation for, of and by the people.

Is it your considered opinion then that any time the elected representatives decide that the best interests of the country are different from the opinion of the majority of voters, this is a bad thing? How about if the majority of Americans decided it would be a good idea to hunt down all African-Americans? or Mexicans? or Muslims? Do you think this would be good government? Similarly, if you surveyed Americans and asked them if a tax cut to 5% across the board was a good idea, the majority may well answer affirmatively. Again, that does not mean it would end well. People are stupid, this is why we have elected officials who, hopefully, are in a position to look at issues from a broader perspective. Perhaps they have looked into the issue more deeply than you have. Perhaps they are corrupt. And perhaps turning every WC thread into a discussion of GMOs and climate change is unnecessary. At least leave the odd thread for a sidebar to religion - that is always just so entertaining.

[WellSpyder]

 Zelandakh, on 2016-July-13, 08:41, said:

How about if the majority of Americans decided it would be a good idea to hunt down all African-Americans? or Mexicans? or Muslims? Do you think this would be good government? Similarly, if you surveyed Americans and asked them if a tax cut to 5% across the board was a good idea, the majority may well answer affirmatively. Again, that does not mean it would end well. People are stupid, this is why we have elected officials who, hopefully, are in a position to look at issues from a broader perspective.

This is the Brexit thread. How did you resist the temptation to use that as an example of what happens if you rely on the views of the majority of voters rather than their elected representatives?

[Zelandakh]

 WellSpyder, on 2016-July-13, 09:23, said:

This is the Brexit thread. How did you resist the temptation to use that as an example of what happens if you rely on the views of the majority of voters rather than their elected representatives?

For the same reason that I did not use the death penalty. It is arguable that the majority course is a good one in these cases whereas the protection of minority rights and populist actions taken out of context for the economy as a whole are things that I suspect everyone here can agree on.

[Aberlour10]

B. Johnson as the Foreign Secretary? elephant in a china shop., sorry

[shyams]

 Aberlour10, on 2016-July-13, 13:49, said:

B. Johnson as the Foreign Secretary? elephant in a china shop., sorry

Agree. However, a small matter that makes a sizable difference. Boris will not be responsible for dealing with the EU and the Brexit negotiations --- i.e. a much diminished foreign secretary role mostly aimed at promoting UK's relations with the US, Asia, Middle East and Africa.

[shyams]

A sincere question:

Why does the European Parliament operate from both Strasbourg and Brussels? Why does it not choose one location (logically, Brussels) and conduct all its business from there?

[Aberlour10]

 shyams, on 2016-July-13, 14:28, said:

A sincere question:

Why does the European Parliament operate from both Strasbourg and Brussels? Why does it not choose one location (logically, Brussels) and conduct all its business from there?

its only one of the typical EU nonsenses, This travelling circus costs about 114 000 000 pounds more a year.

The historical development of this nonsense here:

https://en.wikipedia...pean_Parliament

[Vampyr]

I kind of wonder why so many of the Bremainers didn't turn out to vote.

[1eyedjack]

 shyams, on 2016-July-13, 14:15, said:

Agree. However, a small matter that makes a sizable difference. Boris will not be responsible for dealing with the EU and the Brexit negotiations --- i.e. a much diminished foreign secretary role mostly aimed at promoting UK's relations with the US, Asia, Middle East and Africa.

But there is a trade minister also.

Maybe foreign secretary is now just a placebo

[1eyedjack]

 Vampyr, on 2016-July-13, 15:40, said:

I kind of wonder why so many of the Bremainers didn't turn out to vote.

They expected a comfortable win.

Just as many who voted Brexit expected a comfortable loss.

Neither expected their vote to matter.

[cherdano]

 shyams, on 2016-July-13, 14:15, said:

Agree. However, a small matter that makes a sizable difference. Boris will not be responsible for dealing with the EU and the Brexit negotiations --- i.e. a much diminished foreign secretary role mostly aimed at promoting UK's relations with the US, Asia, Middle East and Africa.

So. The person who suggested Obama might be motivated by "part-Kenyan heritage and ancestral dislike of the British Empire" will be responsible for the "special relation" with the USA.

Seriously, is there any possible government job for which Johnson might be a worse fit than becoming the head of UK diplomacy?

Not sure whether to laugh or to cry. Maybe it is a setup to let Boris prove to everyone he isn't suited for higher jobs.

[Vampyr]

 1eyedjack, on 2016-July-13, 15:48, said:

They expected a comfortable win.

Just as many who voted Brexit expected a comfortable loss.

Neither expected their vote to matter.

Still, in areas where the Leave vote won, there was a higher (sometimes mch higher) turnout.

[Trinidad]

 mgoetze, on 2016-July-12, 14:05, said:

Brexit seems to have had quite the impact on UK Academia already:
https://www.theguard...t-funding-fears

What would you do if you are drafting a proposal for EU funding? Go for the British partner or for the one from e.g. France?

These EU projects are meant to promote scientific co-operation within the EU and are paid for by the EU members. The UK just voted that they didn't want to pay for this kind of "nonsense" anymore. What do you think your chances are to get your proposal approved if you have non-EU partners? The best that can happen is that the EU will grant you your project, won't pay for the UK part of it, but does want to see the progress reports from the UK part of the project (because in a true co-operation work by one partner affects the others). So, in the worst case you are ruining your chances to get your project funded. In the best case you don't get extra money, but still need to do the paperwork if you take a UK partner.

It would be silly to search for EU co-operation with UK partners, right now, since there is nothing to gain. And since most scientists are pretty intelligent, UK scientists are feeling the results of the Brexit immediately.

Rik

[cherdano]

 Trinidad, on 2016-July-14, 02:21, said:

What would you do if you are drafting a proposal for EU funding? Go for the British partner or for the one from e.g. France?

These EU projects are meant to promote scientific co-operation within the EU and are paid for by the EU members. The UK just voted that they didn't want to pay for this kind of "nonsense" anymore. What do you think your chances are to get your proposal approved if you have non-EU partners? The best that can happen is that the EU will grant you your project, won't pay for the UK part of it, but does want to see the progress reports from the UK part of the project (because in a true co-operation work by one partner affects the others). So, in the worst case you are ruining your chances to get your project funded. In the best case you don't get extra money, but still need to do the paperwork if you take a UK partner.

It would be silly to search for EU co-operation with UK partners, right now, since there is nothing to gain. And since most scientists are pretty intelligent, UK scientists are feeling the results of the Brexit immediately.

Rik

Technically, you are wrong.
1. These projects are meant to foster collaboration within EU countries and the Horizon 2020 associated countries (Iceland Norway Albania Bosnia and Herzegovina the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia Montenegro Serbia Turkey Israel Moldova Switzerland (*) Faroe Islands Ukraine Tunisia Georgia). Once the UK leaves the EU, could become an associated country.
2. As long as the UK hasn't triggered article 50 and either negotiated an exit agreement with the EU or the 2-year deadline passes, the UK and the EU are both bound by their commitment to Horizon 2020. The UK is still paying in, and the EU is still committed to paying out.
3. Horizon 2020 only awards money that has already been paid in by member states.

But of course, on another level you are right. It's hard to see a resolution to the Brexit negotiations, and if the negotiations become difficult, either side may play hardball by breaking their commitment to
Horizon 2020. If you are preparing a large proposal, that is a large amount of work and has a small chance to succeed, why take even a small risk that would further reduce your odds?

[Trinidad]

 cherdano, on 2016-July-14, 06:51, said:

Technically, you are wrong.

The process of gathering partners, writing a proposal, applying for EU money, waiting for your grant to be awarded takes about the same time as it takes for the Brexit negotiations once the UK invokes article 50 (which sh/could happen fairly soon now). So, if you start the process now, by the time you can start the project, the UK is not part of the EU anymore.

As far as deals that will replace the EU membership are concerned: Part of the Brexit campaigning was specifically against sending money to Brussels to hand out to, among others, the scientific community, to give the money back to the UK (with a considerably larger overhead than that "bureaucratic" EU ). Given that, if you were a scientist or engineer applying for a grant, what would you do: Get together with a British partner or go with the e.g. French?

Rik

[fromageGB]

 cherdano, on 2016-June-29, 10:35, said:

fromageGB uses blatantly racist language ("parasites")

Hello my friend
Maybe that's a racist word where you are, but not here.
Incidentally, I have been out of contact for a few weeks staying with French friends, and developments have been very interesting viewed from a French angle. They cover it better than we would with the tables reversed, but maybe we will be testing that sometime, as the anti-EU feeling is definitely growing over there. And France is the country that invented bureaucrats.

[fromageGB]

 shyams, on 2016-July-13, 14:15, said:

Agree. However, a small matter that makes a sizable difference. Boris will not be responsible for dealing with the EU and the Brexit negotiations --- i.e. a much diminished foreign secretary role mostly aimed at promoting UK's relations with the US, Asia, Middle East and Africa.

I was dreading Boris as PM, and thought maybe minister of transport would be better. He's good on tubes and bikes ! Seriously, he will be very good in this foreign secretary role. As long as he stays away from the negotiations and trade agreements.

[fromageGB]

 helene_t, on 2016-June-29, 09:04, said:

Yes, when we have two correlated variables (in this case education and age) which both correlates with an outcome (in this case voting behaviour) ...

When I voted, I was not requested to state my level of education, so how is this supposed "fact" derived? It can only be from opinion poll sampling, and we know how accurate that is.

[RMB1]

The BBC report a paper which says that support for "traditional values" is better correlated with voting leave than age/education/wealth.

Where "traditional values" is typified by support for the death penalty and flogging.