Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nathanielle)
    Yeah, because that is how EU funding works and because EU is all the time funding research projects in countries having nothing to do with the EU.... Do you really believe that? I mean, honestly?
    I didnt say the EU was to fund our science. I said that the scientists who are part of the EU arent going to lose their funding from us. Did you really misinterpret it that badly? I mean, honestly?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by elen90)
    I can and I will. There need to be more regulations on referendums such as these. If 16 year olds cannot vote, nor should 65+ year olds.

    My 80 year old grandmother agrees with me.
    Your argument is flawed. If 16 year olds get to vote, why not 14 year olds as 'it will affect them for longer'? Why not 12 year olds? There has to be a cut-off somewhere.

    There are plenty of regulations in place for referendums. You and your grandmother are both wrong. Get over it.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by elen90)
    I can and I will. There need to be more regulations on referendums such as these. If 16 year olds cannot vote, nor should 65+ year olds.

    My 80 year old grandmother agrees with me.
    I believe in one man, one vote.

    I propose that I get to be the man.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    In an open market I very much can, just as I can shop at Tesco without having to buy every product at Tesco, and no product elsewhere. This is in fact how most financial transactions work. If the EU and UK benefit from cooperation here, and the UK is putting up money at least equal to what is consumes, there is no reason for the EU to decline other than spite. And if spite is what is offered, there are always the US, China, Australia, India, Japan, ..., to whom we can offer money and cooperation instead.
    You are honestly comparing buying at Tesco with e.g. projects like ITER?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DontVoteLabour)
    I didnt say the EU was to fund our science. I said that the scientists who are part of the EU arent going to lose their funding from us. Did you really misinterpret it that badly? I mean, honestly?
    I was referring to the future, not projects already being paid. That was, why I was not understadning, that you only talk about now, not a Britain finally out of the EU. Sorry.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by elen90)
    Do you believe there's some miracle biological change that goes on between the ages of 16 and 18 that causes someone to gain a heightened level of political omniscience? 16 year olds had all the right to vote given that this will profoundly affect them far more than the old generation, and I find it insulting when people suggest otherwise.

    10% isn't a direct figure, but I estimate that it's higher than that. People that voted for it are coming out of the woodwork thinking... 'woops'. You're probably going to now try to criticise me for 'making up figures' but that would be rich if it came from a Leave campaign supporter, and unreasonable pedanticism given that it was clearly an estimation - and probably a conservative one at that.
    Well, there is a rather large biological change between 16 and 18, the brain undergoes a lot of development during those years, I suppose?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Duncan2012)
    Your argument is flawed. If 16 year olds get to vote, why not 14 year olds as 'it will affect them for longer'? Why not 12 year olds? There has to be a cut-off somewhere.

    There are plenty of regulations in place for referendums. You and your grandmother are both wrong. Get over it.
    Maybe if you'd bother to read my other posts you would see that I also advocate voting for much younger age groups, partly because the apathetic unaware ones simply will not vote, but that's far too radical for most people to stomach so I rarely debate it.

    Wrong is subjective and you have to have an ego larger than Johnson's hair dye collection to believe that all of your opinions are indisputably correct. I'm not getting over anything anytime soon.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by elen90)
    Maybe if you'd bother to read my other posts you would see that I also advocate voting for much younger age groups, partly because the apathetic unaware ones simply will not vote, but that's far too radical for most people to stomach so I rarely debate it.

    Wrong is subjective and you have to have an ego larger than Johnson's hair dye collection to believe that all of your opinions are indisputably correct. I'm not getting over anything anytime soon.
    I'm not wasting time trawling through your posts because there's more to life than that. Although I am genuinely interested to hear your thoughts on voting ages and what you think would be appropriate for what level of decision-making.

    The 'wrong' comment was aimed at your suggestion about preventing a certain demographic (>65) from voting just because another demographic (<18) couldn't. I'm certainly not claiming that I'm always right, but your suggestion would be contrary to the ethical ('over 65s can't be trusted to vote') and legal ('the law says under 18s cannot vote') positions, hence why it would be wrong.
    • TSR Support Team
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by Observatory)
    That might be true but it is both a much wider issue than the one being discussed in this thread, and one based on speculation.


    Has the government made any statement on this? My original criticism of the Nature article was that the people gave no reason why they expected the government not to match the lost funding, even though it can easily afford to do so.

    If the government has said that the funding will vanish then fine, though I have to doubt that the government would be willing to see British universities plunge in the world rankings.

    Otherwise, the comments made by these scientists and science managers and published by Nature should have been much more equivocal than they are. They have no justification for making the claims they have made with the certainty with which they have made them; it s an emotional and not a rational response from a group that was probably strongly pro-Remain for unrelated reasons.
    Have you been paying attention to the UK's track record of funding science? As a proportion of GDP, we already invest significantly less money into research than other countries like Germany, well below the EU-wide target of 2%. If you speak to anybody involved in research, you will know how excruciatingly tight funding already is even with the money secured from the EU and now this guaranteed money is going to disappear too. The conclusion that UK science is going to suffer from Brexit is an absolutely obvious conclusion looking at this government's interactions with the scientific community over the past six years. It never ceases to amaze me how arrogant you can be to assume that the entire UK scientific community is too stupid to understand how this move is going to influence their funding stream.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    The oddest thing about that article is that it suggests increasing NHS investment by £100m/week. They clearly stated that they wanted it to be 350m, why were they trying to back out then?

    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    These are emotional responses. None of them give a solid reason why the government won't replace lost EU funding - given then the UK government ultimately pays for it anyway - or even note the possibility that it could. It is like someone hearing that his company is going to be merged assuming not only that he will be fired but that he will never be able to get another job again.
    The british government has NEVER spent much on science funding and has always been proportionately the country that spends the least on science in the EU. The simple fact is, science funding is going to drop.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tb_p6FljPfw This video may be informative.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by physicsphysics91)
    As a UK science student I voted out because I wanted to de-cuck myself from the EU
    Me too
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by welshiee)
    Yes, being outside of the EU will ruin our scientific research and drive us all into a state of retarded oblivion.

    Lets just pretend all of the following scientists, innovators and pioneers didn't exist in Europe before the existence of the EU.

    Isaac Newton
    Alexander Fleming
    Charles Darwin
    Michael Faraday
    Tim Berners-Lee
    Isambard Kingdom Brunel
    Alexander Bell
    Linus Torvalds
    Nikola Tesla
    Ada Lovelace
    Albert Einstein
    Marie Curie
    Niels Bohr
    Rene Descartes
    Louis Pasteur

    The list goes on............................

    Yes, we, and any other European country, clearly need to be part of the EU to be pioneers in the world.

    Stop talking drivel.
    This isn't the early 1900s/1800s/1700s. The world has changed. Especially the world of science. Collaboration and anything conducive to collaboration is key. Ask any scientist. It's not a mystery why scientists and researchers overwhelmingly supported remaining in the EU. Or maybe you're one of those who's "sick of experts"?

    I don't know how many times I have to tell Brexiters that this isn't the 1950s, the 1940s, the 1930s or however far you want to go back. I'm actually getting annoyed with you guys, because it seems you truly lack the comprehension skills to appreciate the gravity of Brexit. Boris Johnson has and guess what, he's pretty much gone into hiding. The leading figure for the Leave campaign has barely been answering questions since they won.

    The government is pretty much in a shambles and all you can talk about is how great Britain will be again when it's clear no one in the Leave campaign had even agreed on a post-Brexit strategy. Absolutely ridiculous.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by looseseal)
    This isn't the early 1900s you blithering idiot. The world has changed.
    Calm down Captain Obvious.

    Especially the world of science. Collaboration and anything conducive to collaboration is key. Ask any scientist.
    I am a scientist as that is my background.

    Yes. We should collaborate with Australia, Russia, China, Japan, Canada and the USA when it comes to research as they're making incredible and incredible steps forward all of the time.

    It's not a mystery why scientists and researchers overwhelmingly supported remaining in the EU.
    Of course its not. Its where most of their funding currently comes from. They were just looking after their own selfish interests.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by welshiee)
    Calm down Captain Obvious.


    I am a scientist as that is my background.
    I apologise, but Brexiters blase attitude to Brexit is starting to get extremely frustrating.

    I'm a scientist too by the way. And my university is certainly worried about the potential issues that Brexit will cause.

    Yes. We should collaborate with Australia, Russia, China, Japan, Canada and the USA when it comes to research as they're making incredible and incredible steps forward all of the time.
    Of course, but do we need to cut ourselves off from potential EU funding and talent in order to collaborate with those countries?

    Of course its not. Its where most of their funding currently comes from. They were just looking after their own selfish interests.
    Their selfish interests are interests that contribute to the prosperity of the country. So if you want to disregard their worries as unimportant then go ahead but just bear in mind that they're the people who move us forward as a country.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by welshiee)
    I am a scientist as that is my background.

    Yes. We should collaborate with Australia, Russia, China, Japan, Canada and the USA when it comes to research as they're making incredible and incredible steps forward all of the time.
    If you don't mind me asking, what is your background? Because we do collaborate with all of those countries - it is massively more convenient to do work with European countries (and the US, but that's another issue) however. Leaving the EU won't improve collaborations with those countries, it will just strain existing collaborations with Europe, which no, won't stop.

    It's not going to damage EU science, because the EU budget won't drop much so EU science will continue to be funded.

    UK science, however, is going to be getting a kick up the backside. With all the pressure there's going to be to put any money from Europe into the NHS as well as GDP losses due to uncertainty, UK science funding is likely to fall through the floor without EU support.

    NB: Sorry for asking about your background if that's personal. It can hardly be less impressive than mine though - I go to uni next year, I still have two A level exams to do!
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by elen90)
    The thing is, when you deprive 16 and 17 year olds of the right to vote yet give it to 85 year olds, and the Leave vote wins by a 52% majority, out of a 72% turnout of eligible citizens, then recognise that at least 10% of leave voters are now terrified because they didn't expect their side to win, it becomes very undemocratic.

    The country has not spoken. Leave voters do not speak for the 48% of people who voted Remain. They do not speak for me.
    They shouldn't be allowed to vote.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ladymusiclover)
    They shouldn't be allowed to vote.
    Here we go again.

    Pray do tell - why? They're not politically savvy enough? Because every single voter in this referendum epitomised knowledge and made informed decisions?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by elen90)
    Here we go again.

    Pray do tell - why? They're not politically savvy enough? Because every single voter in this referendum epitomised knowledge and made informed decisions?
    Adults only. There needs to a boundary to what age people can vote. If 16 year olds could vote why not 15 year olds? There has to be some cut off. The only reason most people are arguing 16-17 year olds should be allowed to vote is because the remain camp lost.
 
 
 
Poll
Who is your favourite TV detective?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.