EU Referendum - How will you vote?

[Shef1985]

Do you not agree with Hawking that science will result in our destruction within 100 years?

 

No sutty. Because he didn't say it would, he said it might. Do I agree it might? Yes.

 

Do I know science will suffer if we Brexit? No. But it might. I'd rather not risk it.

Edited June 4, 2016 by Shef1985

[melthebell]

It is £350 that we don't control, some is spent here but not necessarily on things we would choose to spend it on and some is spent in other countries on things we don't necessarily agree with.

do other countries put in this £350M too? or are we special and just us put it in?

 

Do you not agree with Hawking that science will result in our destruction within 100 years?

its not science thats the problem, its governments and those that are in charge that use things how they want to use them

[Shef1985]

Don't see why.

A lot of the coolest science in my area: nuclear physics, quantum mechanics, early particle physics, general relativity was mostly done by international collaboration long before the EU.

 

Ok, well at least you are consistent in not believing anyone that says Brexit might/will be a bad thing!

[natjack]

do other countries put in this £350M too? or are we special and just us put it in?[

 

I sincerely hope you're just trolling the thread, because if you're serious, they should ban you from the polling station! You mug!

 

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35943216

Edited June 4, 2016 by natjack

[Shef1985]

I sincerely hope you're just trolling the thread, because if you're serious, they should ban you from the polling station! You mug!

 

Stating its not only Britain that contributes to the EU deserves a ban on voting?

 

Aren't you pro-democracy? But only if they vote the way you want? Mhmm.

[unbeliever]

Ok, well at least you are consistent in not believing anyone that says Brexit might/will be a bad thing!

 

The poster child for modern science CERN. CERN pre-dates European integration by decades. It gets very little funding from the EU even now, most coming direct from collaborating nations through the world, as it has always done.

Scientists don't need the EU to form international collaborations and governments don't need the EU to collaboratively fund scientific endeavours.

Professor Hawking is a very clever man and his views should be taken seriously. But if he's worried about scientific funding drying up with a smaller or even non-existent EU, then I'm pretty sure he's worrying needlessly.

 

---------- Post added 04-06-2016 at 14:52 ----------

 

I sincerely hope you're just trolling the thread, because if you're serious, they should ban you from the polling station! You mug!

 

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35943216

 

Please don't insult the Remainers or the undecideds. The purpose of Brexit is to make a better, more inclusive, more effective democracy. You don't do that by excluding people.

[melthebell]

I sincerely hope you're just trolling the thread, because if you're serious, they should ban you from the polling station! You mug!

 

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35943216

 

ah, you only had to give the info, thanks, are your britches pulled a little too high?

 

Countries' contributions are based on their economic output. The amount the UK contributed last year was based on forecasts from the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR).

We won't know whether that was the right amount until December this year, and the figures are occasionally revised years later.

[sutty27]

No sutty. Because he didn't say it would, he said it might. Do I agree it might? Yes.

 

Do I know science will suffer if we Brexit? No. But it might. I'd rather not risk it.

 

So science might suffer if we Brexit, but if we stay in the EU it won't suffer but then we might be destroyed by science. Which to choose, out appears to give us the better chance of not being destroyed.

 

---------- Post added 04-06-2016 at 14:57 ----------

 

do other countries put in this £350M too? or are we special and just us put it in?

 

 

Every countries contributions are different.

[unbeliever]

It's a lie. It has already been proven to be a lie. It says in the same paragraph that we could spend that £350m on the NHS. We can't because we never send £350m.

 

http://infacts.org/vote-leave-lying-saying-send-eu-350-million-week/

 

The other side is just as bad. Looking at the remain leaflet it says we have £36bn less to spend if we leave. How can they possibly state that so emphatically? How can they possibly know?

 

For such an important decision the recourse to lies and fake statistics is highly irritating. Had enough of it. From both sides.

 

I would have preferred such a misleading figure not to be used. It gives the impression that we will have £350m/week more to spend on UK public services if we leave. Which isn't true. I would be content if they would simply deduct the rebate, as when that money comes back we can spend it on whatever we want. I don't mind if they want to (for the headline figure) include the money which the EU spends here as the UK government should decide on such spending.

 

---------- Post added 04-06-2016 at 15:02 ----------

 

So science might suffer if we Brexit, but if we stay in the EU it won't suffer but then we might be destroyed by science. Which to choose, out appears to give us the better chance of not being destroyed.

 

If Europe were to reduce funding for science. Which as I say I'm pretty sure won't happen either way:

Scientific progress will continue regardless elsewhere in the developed world.

The only difference would be that the UK and/or Europe would benefit less from such advancements.

 

Let's say it's AI. The US or Japan for example get it first. Massive manufacturing boom there. New technology designed by the machines themselves. Economic and weather predictions that actually work long-term. Fully automated personal transport for less than regular transport. A revolution in computer software. All happening elsewhere.

Naff all here until we catch up.

Now if we're dumb enough to let the AI's start building killer robots to fight our wars for us then we're in trouble. Just don't vote for anybody who's never watched a sci-fi movie or read anything by Asimov.

Edited June 4, 2016 by unbeliever

[sutty27]

I would have preferred such a misleading figure not to be used. It gives the impression that we will have £350m/week more to spend on UK public services if we leave. Which isn't true. I would be content if they would simply deduct the rebate, as when that money comes back we can spend it on whatever we want. I don't mind if they want to (for the headline figure) include the money which the EU spends here as the UK government should decide on such spending.

 

They should be using this figure.

 

EU regulation costs Britain £118bn a year.

 

EU regulation touches just about every level of every industry. If you want to build something, grow something, mince something, scrap something, recycle something, burn something, paint something, bake something, package something or do a myriad of other things, there is a sheaf of densely typed regulations just for you. In total, red tape from Brussels adds another £100 billion of lost income, extra expenditure and forfeited economic growth to the bill.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/6198708/EU-costs-Britain-118bn-a-year.html