BS: Labour party discussion

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Aug 16 - 02:55 PM

I really would like to know what solution you propose to your "benefit culture" Ake, or is that going to be another undisclosed secret of the right, along with where to house the army of franticly peddaling itinerant workers looking for jobs in places where there are no homes to rent?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Aug 16 - 02:16 PM

"To be immersed in the "benefits culture" is bad for people."
There is no such thing as being immersed by "the benefit culture".
Benefit is an entitlement paid for by workers - an insurance.
Those who use it do so as an entitlement - those who 'abuse it' do so in the same way the better off do by seeking legal loopholes to avoid paying tax.
Both may be reprehensible, but when placed against the other, who is the most - a worker who manipulates benefits in order to lift his family out of poverty, or someone who can afford to pay expensive lawyers in order to save many thousands in tax.
Jobseekers allowance at present in Britain stands thus:

Age                                 JSA weekly amount
18 to 24                          up to £57.90
25 or over                          up to £73.10
Couples (both aged over 18)         up to £114.85

Measure this against the amount taken from Britain by tax evasion.
BENEFIT FRAUD v TAX EVASION
You choose to castigate a worker who attempts to better the lot of his family while ignoring the rich who won't pay tax.
Says everything that needs to be said.
You want to stop benefit fraud - pay a living wage - the pittance handedout is hardly going to obtain too many second hmes otr holidays abroad!
Your arguments are those of the rightest of right Tories.
Or perhaps you would like to suggest an alternative?
I really don't know what you are ranting about with your Reality TV.
The British working man is not a revolutionary by heart - that was avoided by the success of The Empire in exploiting our colonials and keeping wages just above starvation level on the profits.
Improvements were hard fought for while we had a voice in Britain - now we haven't - take a look at the rapidly accelerating gap between the haves and the have nots.
There might become a breaking point where people will say "enough is enough", but not in my lifetime.
In the meantime - there is no reason on earth why wealth sharing measures might not be brought about by a socialist enough Government.
You choose to attack workers and their rights on every level - as benefit scroungers, as exploiters of the National Health Service....
You are arrogant enough to tell us what we will accept and what the won't, but you carefully avoid responding to the facts of what they have responded to in the past.
Establishing "Right and wrong" across the board is a revolutionary concept - but you are talking about just instilling it into working people.
Coupled with your intolerant attitude to asylum seekers, refugees immigrants and homosexuals, you (along with your chosen buddies) are the most extreme right-wing people I have ever encountered - disturbingly so.
If you are a Socialist/Communist - my jack's a kipper!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Aug 16 - 12:08 PM

Jim, you misunderstand me. To be immersed in the "benefits culture" is bad for people.....As I keep saying to be happy and fulfilled people need a purpose.....why do you think so many immensely wealthy people are deeply unhappy.
Socialism provides people with a purpose all contributing what they can to the Common Weal, but it takes years, generations to break the hold of the main driver of capitalism......personal financial aspiration. When all the necessities of the system are in place, it is a tremendous driver but in Western developed countries it has become unsustainable......just look at todays young people, huge expectations, but no chance of fulfilling them...saddled with debt from higher education onwards....look at the urban underclass the horrific drug problems, all symptoms of society in decline.
Look at the entertainment industry some of the "reality" stuff they are putting out is simply exploitative pornography.

We need to give back some sense of right and wrong to our people and socialism fits the bill

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Aug 16 - 08:40 AM

"so did Hitler - "
Should read "from the German people" of course - it was only the establishment who offered Hitler any support in the form of appeasement.
The British people paid the consequences for that appeasement.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Aug 16 - 08:33 AM

"You are Sooo right Jim!!"
Don't get your point on irony at all, I'm afraid
It is incredibly patronising and arrogant to pronounce what the British people will and will not accept, as you have done on several occasions.
They/we took to the socialist measures introduced in the post war years like ducks to water.
Nationalisation was fully accepted as a legitimate system until is was undermined by underinvestment and denigration by the Tories - didn't hear howls of protest from people being 'forced' to travel on publicly owned trains, or burn nationalised coal, or by British produced steel goods....
I don't remember any public outcry about having to live in Council-owned property rather than stay tenets of the Rachmanns of this world.
It took Thatcherism (the nearest Britain has ever come to a Fascist administration) to kill those off - and please dont tell me what support she had from the British people - so did Hitler - a little bit of propaganda goes a long way in this twisted world..
Despite intense media pressure, the miner's strike was supported by large numbers of the British people
The only reason we still have a public health service is because it would reduce the country to near-revolution is your lot tried to remove it.
It is not the people who will not accept socialism - it is people like you, who claim to speak on their behalf.
You claim to be a socialist, yet you dismiss one of the great and only social perks ordinary people have as "benefit dependency" - putting yourself in the category of your two right-wing friends who regard working people as natural scroungers who cannot be trusted not to abuse a basic right.
Socialist my arse!!   
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Aug 16 - 08:11 AM

Wow! I wish I could have thought of a response like that! :0(

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Aug 16 - 08:08 AM

How would YOU know?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Aug 16 - 08:03 AM

"This is not a discussion on socialism - it is about how to make the best of what we have got with today's Labour Party"

You are Sooo right Jim!! (irony alert)

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Aug 16 - 04:19 AM

"Teribus and Keith are correct in my opinion.....It will take many years for socialism to replace the system of financial aspiration which rules our lives at the moment"
Theyu have never been "correct" anbout anything -0 though they are certainly RIGHT
Neither are the slightest bit interested in Socialism or have the slightest idea what it is (nor are you, in my opinion)
This is not a discussion on socialism - it is about how to make the best of what we have got with today's Labour Party and assist it to help clear up the present mess caused by the crownd in control - and **** Brexit
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Aug 16 - 02:43 AM

Teribus and Keith are correct in my opinion.....It will take many years for socialism to replace the system of financial aspiration which rules our lives at the moment, but there is simply no alternative in the long term .....our wasteful use of resources and labour cannot carry on forever, and at least in Mr Corbyn we have the chance to hear a real alternative to the capitalist narrative.

The young folks who's lives have been curtailed by the process may be more amenable to change than the spoiled generations which went before them when all the ingredients required to make capitalism work were available.

Turning Labour back into something like Blair's New Labour, means no change and a futher move towards the corrupt US form of government.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Aug 16 - 08:14 PM

And it's the last bit that's the uphill struggle. Blair and company did it via masterly spin. They had Murdoch on their side too. Tactics were everything, substance mostly nothing. All helped by the Tories proving how adept they were at choosing useless leaders. But the current Labour leadership have none of that. Loose cannons who say unwise things are gleefully pounced on and their issues become issues for months. There is a lack of discipline in some quarters which I'll freely admit to. Worst of all, the two-time losers in Labour who effectively imposed Cameron on us for two terms refuse to cooperate with a democratically-elected leader with a strong mandate. Labour have no mainstream media on their side, an understatement to dwarf all others. It's all a bit of a bugger but Kevin's last sentence is spot on. And read it again. Despite the darkly nonsensical Keithisms and Teribusisms we read here about Labour's cancers and near-terrorist qualities, there is a good dash of honesty coming to the fore. Let's hope it lasts. If it doesn't, and Owen Smith beats the odds, not only will it all evaporate in a spiralling whirl back to New Labour, the most spent of all spent forces, but we will STILL not get another Labour government next time, nor probably the time after that.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Aug 16 - 07:01 AM

No I didn't ignore the existence of the voters. It's their decision when it comes to voting. But the decision about the leadership of the Labour party, as a way of determining the overall policies of the party, rests with the membership together with members of affiliated unions and registered supporters.

Basically it's a matter of saying "this is what we are, and this is what we believe, and this is why we think you should support us".

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Aug 16 - 04:27 AM

Yes they do (to get elected, silly).
Of course you are right Keith - I misread (and I have no doubt that much will be made of my misreading!).
What I intended to say is that it is the duty of the Labour Party to serve the interest of the people as a whole rather than the privileged and better off few - it is a grass-roots party created by working people to address an imbalance in society.
The nearest it ever came to doing that was in the 1940s when it adopted measures designed to create a genuine "home fit for heroes to live in".
That was fiercely opposed and eventually dismantled by the Tories and the ideal was abandoned by self-servers who saw politics as a career rather than a way to achieve a better world.
Holding office has become more important than bringing about real change.
The Tories have never pretended to do more than represent the wealthy and privileged - the best of them adopted a benign superiority in the belief that the rest of the population might survive from the crumbs of the right-mans table - this present pack of savages regards the less well-off as a hindrance, and a drag on their objectives - work and war fodder lazy benefit scroungers - little else.
It makes little difference to the people of Britain if Labour is elected with the same objectives.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Aug 16 - 03:46 AM

"To get elected into office the Labour Party needs to get the support of the voters who number in their millions "
No they don't -

Yes they do (to get elected, silly).

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Aug 16 - 03:17 AM

"To get elected into office the Labour Party needs to get the support of the voters who number in their millions "
No they don't - does it say that in the rule book - utter nonsense?
What party is so democratic it has to win nationwide support to elect leaders?
None
That would require an ideal by-the-book Communist-based system to produce such a situation.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Aug 16 - 12:57 AM

The only problem with that answer of yours Kevin is that you are still only talking about members of the Labour Party - they number in the hundreds of thousands. To get elected into office the Labour Party needs to get the support of the voters who number in their millions (roughly 9.5 million) These are the people represented by the Parliamentary Labour Party. These are the people who have realised the fact that seems to have escaped the vast majority of those members of the Labour Party, particularly those who support Corbyn, you can spout on about and pay lip service to whatever guiding principles you like, you can pontificate in broad-brush terms ideology and policy - to translate those into anything you have to get elected into office, and the electorate knows, and the Parliamentary Labour Party knows that as long as Corbyn is leader that is never going to happen.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Aug 16 - 08:42 PM

If the Labour Party electorate vote for Jeremy Corbyn, members of parliament should recognise that is the view of the party nationally, and in most cases at the level of their own constituency. (The overwhelming majority of constituencies have registered support for Jeremy, including most of those who supported other candidates in last years leadership election.) If they feel unable to accept the view of the party, they should resign from the party.

I believe in that situation they should act similarly to the two Tory MPs who defected to Ukip last year, and should resign from Parliament and seek re-election. This would provide a opportunity for the public to indicate their views on the matter.

If they choose to stay in Parliament as Labour members, they should obey the decision of the membership, and cooperate fully with Jeremy. If they are unwilling to do that they may weell be inviting reselection.

It's basically all about democracy.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Aug 16 - 07:18 PM

McGrath of Harlow - 17 Aug 16 - 02:44 PM

Corbyn will undoubtedly win the leadership election, so none of Labour's problems will be resolved. Where in your reading of the situation are Labour voters views taken into consideration? They are the people who have lost confidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 17 Aug 16 - 04:43 PM

I love you too Greg.......kiss, kiss!

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Aug 16 - 02:44 PM

If the position of the opponents of Corbyn is that they don't disagree with the policies he stands for, but that it's just a question of them not having confidence in him, that's not a real problem. If the mass of the Labour party demonstrates that it does have confidence in him, the MPs just need to have the good sense, good manners and personal humility to accept that judgement.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 Aug 16 - 02:39 PM

Don't forget Mudcat.

OK if I forget YOU, Bubo?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: DMcG
Date: 17 Aug 16 - 02:00 PM

I presume your last paragraph, Teribus, is about Brexit - which is not the subject of this thread - rather than Labour, which is.

If it did refer to Labour, it seems to me both camps have got the point that they ARE prepared to cut off their own noses. Unfortunately both sides are passionately convinced they are right - the Blairite are not simply opportunists, they believe wholeheartedly their way is the only way to save the party. So even if/when Corbyn wins again, I have little doubt the battles will carry on as now for a long time. And then resurface in force after the next election.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Aug 16 - 01:55 PM

I'd never call you a liar, any more than the man in question.

I'm hoping we don't cut off our nose to spite our face, and that free movement will indeed be preserved. But the chances aren't too great. I doubt very much if the EU will budge significantly on this issue.

There could be some kind of fudge which the British govenment will try to present as a negotiating triumph, the way there was with Cameron's "EU reforms". I'm sure the Sir Humphreys could cobble up something of that sort.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 17 Aug 16 - 01:48 PM

And here I thought "Social Media" (Farcebook, Twatter et. al.) was going to save the world.

Don't forget Mudcat.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Aug 16 - 12:54 PM

McGrath of Harlow - 17 Aug 16 - 09:24 AM

"Teribus's comments about things not being so bad are a bit like the man who jumped from a skyscraper who was heard to say "all right so far" as he passed the thirteenth floor..."

Not really Kevin and besides even if that were true, you could never accuse the man of being a liar.

I think that when it does come down to negotiation neither side is going to cut their nose off to spite their face.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 Aug 16 - 12:33 PM

And anonymous and untraceable tweets, which could have come from anyone, with any motivation, don't add up to any kind of evidence

And here I thought "Social Media" (Farcebook, Twatter et. al.) was going to save the world.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Aug 16 - 11:46 AM

And anonymous and untraceable tweets, which could have come from anyone, with any motivation, don't add up to any kind of evidence against Corbyn or those who share his views. (Except that those who send them clearly do not share Corbyn's views on sexism, racism, anti-semitism or abusing others.)

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Aug 16 - 10:59 AM

"The Newspapers verbatim coverage of the Labour Leadership debate between Corbyn and Smith on BBC Two's Victoria Derbyshire Show."
The quote is about being afraid if given as being from Ashton.
Immaterial anyway - it is unqualified and as such - unreliable.
You pair are still thrashing around trying to proce something for which theer is no tangible evidence - and no logic in a party dedicated to opposing antisemitism and fighting for women's rights.
You want to prove either - produce examples and figures - otherwise, it is fairly obvious that both claims are related to anti-Boycott propaganda and a dirty leadership fight.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Aug 16 - 10:26 AM

Well, Keith, as Teribus points out (quite rightly 😂😂😂), the big desertion has yet to be triggered and it'll be years before we are out. Crowing about a tiny shift in the numbers at this stage is premature in the extreme.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 17 Aug 16 - 10:22 AM

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37105028

A link to the BBC News article, people can make their own judgement on what it and the figures actually mean.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Aug 16 - 10:10 AM

"Your (deliberately) unlinked article came from that champion of democracy, The Daily Telegraph."

Not exactly true Jom. The Newspapers verbatim coverage of the Labour Leadership debate between Corbyn and Smith on BBC Two's Victoria Derbyshire Show.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Aug 16 - 10:06 AM

Rag,
The unemployment figures were from April to June BEFORE the Brexit vote.
Sheesh

No they were not Rag.
Sheesh.

Guardian 5 hours ago,
Fears that a Brexit vote would trigger widespread job losses failed to materialise last month, with the number of people claiming jobseeker's allowance unexpectedly falling."

The claimant count fell by 8,600 to 763,600 in July, compared with expectations of a rise of 9,500, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS). It was the first monthly fall since February 2016.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/aug/17/uk-unemployment-claimant-count-falls-after-brexit

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Aug 16 - 10:00 AM

You have been responses to the salient points - over and over again - the rest is smoke and mirrors.
Your (deliberately) unlinked article came from that champion of democracy, The Daily Telegraph.
It is probably the vagues, uncorroberated piece of journalism I have ever come across, but both the claims - about women and Jews, are obviously linked to the Israeli campaign to offset criticism of its behaviour in Gaza, and the Labour Leadership contest.
None of the statements are detailed, referenced or the contributors named - they come from Enily Ashton, the editor of 'Buzzfeed/Muckrack' an unsavoury gossip outlet with a reputation for plagiarism and the political editing-out of contributions that criticise their advertisers - it is described as anunreliable source of information.
If you have any evidence of actual threats against women's safety in the Labour Party - feel free to link us to an undiluted version of it.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 17 Aug 16 - 09:49 AM

The unemployment figures were from April to June BEFORE the Brexit vote.

Sheesh

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 Aug 16 - 09:45 AM

Looks like T and The Professor jumped off that skyscraper holding hands.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Aug 16 - 09:38 AM

Google,

UK unemployment claimant count falls after Brexit vote
The Guardian-4 hours ago
Fears that a Brexit vote would trigger widespread job losses failed to materialise last month, with the number of people claiming jobseeker's ...
Unemployment figures: Unexpected fall in joblessness post Brexit vote
The Independent-4 hours ago

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Aug 16 - 09:24 AM

Teribus's comments about things not being so bad are a bit like the man who jumped from a skyscraper who was heard to say "all right so far" as he passed the thirteenth floor...

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Aug 16 - 09:24 AM

Yes indeed "There you have it":

1: - Tell me, what EU rules have been rescinded since 24th June 2016? - Please feel free to correct me - but the answer to the question is not a single one.

2: - Tell me if any negotiations or talks at all have taken place - Again please correct me if I am wrong but no talks have taken place Jean-Claude Juncker has expressly forbidden them - And yet there are people posting on this forum telling us what the results of these talks will mean to the UK - they haven't even taken place yet so how utterly ridiculous can you get.

Meanwhile today's Corbyn Story:

"Jeremy Corbyn was this morning confronted by two female Labour members who said they no longer feel "safe" in the party.

A young Labour member told the Labour leader she would feel more comfortable going to Conservative party conference as a Labour supporter, than going to Labour conference as an Owen Smith supporter.

Another woman revealed her Jewish friends resigned the day he became leader, because they didn't believe it was "safe" for them stay.

It came during a heated debate between the Labour leader and his leadership rival Mr Smith, who launched a fresh attack on Mr Corbyn for failing to crack down on anti-Semitic and misogynistic abuse within the Labour Party."

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Aug 16 - 08:59 AM

"Yeah, but I rose to the bait."
Easily enough done Stu - we'v all been there.
People like this are really not worth the effort - you can usually spot it from day one with their arrogant contempt for you and everything you have to say.
"No Stu - you need to get a grip. You are running about like a headless chicken wailing about things that have not yet happened"
There oyouhave it - no need to heed the experts you use your own ecperience or common sense - just ask the oracle and all will be revealed.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Stu
Date: 17 Aug 16 - 08:50 AM

Yeah, but I rose to the bait. Just passionate about science so feel I have to defend robustly!

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Aug 16 - 08:35 AM

The fact things like "free movement" haven't been stopped is essentially relevant. The aim of those who voted for Brexit was that it should be stopped, and that is what the government is working to achieve.

I'd love it if that doesn't happen, but the remaining Brexiters will be spitting blood if that were to be the case.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 17 Aug 16 - 08:00 AM

Stu, the reminder was not particularly aimed at you. I'll go no further.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Aug 16 - 07:17 AM

No Stu - you need to get a grip.

You are running about like a headless chicken wailing about things that have not yet happened and more like as not will not happen.

Key point from your last post upon which your entire "Doom'n'Gloom" scenario is based:

"The UK will be at a disadvantage IF the free movement of people is stopped"

That is one very big IF and as such it has not yet happened - time that you acknowledged that.

In the time that we have been IN the EU, as far as trade deals go a medium sized country {Switzerland} and a tiny city state {Singapore} have out performed the EU by a factor of five in what they have accomplished. There are no EU trade agreements with either the Chinese or the Indians.

What "narrow-minded, regressive nationalist agenda"? The decision to leave the EU and the main attraction of leaving the EU is that it frees us up to engage with and trade with the world, which oddly enough for the last three years has been our major trading partner. Areas outside the EU are growth areas the EU's economy is stagnant, common sense should tell you which areas we should be trading with.

Scientific ties and co-operation are undoubtedly valuable and as such they will be recognised as such - people will not jettison them lightly.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Aug 16 - 07:15 AM

Drifting that way, Raggytash, but still mostly on the civil sde. But in some case they read like they are trying to tempt responses that cross the line.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Stu
Date: 17 Aug 16 - 07:13 AM

Sorry Raggy. I'll shut up.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 17 Aug 16 - 06:40 AM

"Since the thread about 'Whither the Labour Party" has drifted far from home and turned into a rather unpleasant series of skirmishes about matters of peripheral relevance, I thought I'd start up one where we could talk about the current hurly burly. Preferably without getting into slanging matches. But that might be too much to ask. Coherent and even-tempered slanging matches, at least?"

Looks like the time for a reminder of the above as the usual trend seems to have started.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Stu
Date: 17 Aug 16 - 06:00 AM

"All scientific research and collaboration will come to, or has already, come to an end because the electorate of the United Kingdom exercised their democratic right and voted to leave the EU - oh dear."

Another straw man. Really T, get a grip son. Read the posts, try to comprehend the problem and perhaps even have enough humility to accept someone knows more about a subject than you. Of course your validation is not needed to make something true, so in this respect your opinion is irrelevant, but it'd be good to have an intelligent conversation.

I've no dog in this race as I've given up on party politics, but as a scientist I care very much about how the work of my colleagues is affected by events like the Brexit vote. The UK will be at a disadvantage if the free movement of people is stopped, and this means as a society we loose out too. We face intense competition from India and China in applying our research commercially and this is going to increase as the years pass; our seamless links with Europe via the EU meant we acted as one community and shared resources without boundaries.

We can't let the narrow-minded, regressive nationalist agenda dictate the way science works as the thinking of any nationalist is blinkered by notions of 'nationhood' and whatever crap comes with it. This is the best thing about science as it recognises no borders, religions or nationality; if everyone wants to work together they should be able to.

It's the only way forward for us as a species to gather empirical data and collectively use that data for the common good. Brexit threatens that, and that should be thundered against.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Aug 16 - 04:33 AM

All scientific research and collaboration will come to, or has already, come to an end because the electorate of the United Kingdom exercised their democratic right and voted to leave the EU - oh dear.

My prediction is that it will be nowhere near as bad as Stu and obviously you DMcG predict.

Good luck with your scientific projects DMcG, as yours seem to be running so well perhaps you could throw one of them Stu's way to see him through these terrible times. Rest assured I will thoroughly enjoy my "cop-out retirement" after working for 50 years, I will now devote what remains of my time on this planet to doing as I please whenever I want to do it, not really giving a toss whether it meets with your approval or not.

MGOH - The one thing you forgot to mention about the deal Norway has with the EU - it complies with EU law where it suits (Only 17% compliance to EU rules) and they can ignore what does not suit them. When it comes to balance of trade Norway sells more to the EU than it buys from them. The deal that will be brokered between the EU and the UK does not have to follow any precedent.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: DMcG
Date: 16 Aug 16 - 10:10 PM


By the way the answer to the question about being involved in any science projects? No thankfully I am retired, how many are you involved in DMcG?

Two at the moment, but that is irrelevant. Stu asserted his university was affected, you ignored that and asserted the impact was none or negligible. I asked on what first hand evidence you based that. As you see, whether I have or haven't any first hand evidence myself is of no relevance to the question.

And being retired is a bit of a cop-out as well. I am not, my father in law retired at 65 but was still active, writing, involved with universities and consulting on an informal basis for the next 20+ years. So it is perfectly possible to be retired and have first hand knowledge. Still, it raises the question of whether you were personally involved in such scientic research before you retired since you seem quite certain how it all works.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Stu
Date: 16 Aug 16 - 03:39 PM

"Wow which University in the UK has 1000 staff all from the EU?"

You have no idea what you're talking about - I haven't made this figure up. This is one reason why science has flourished because of EU membership; things are far, far easier when people can go where they want to live and work. I can understand that you have zero experience as a researcher but your hysterical dismissing of this information this as "claptrap" is not an argument, it's an insult and a pretty poor one at that.


"Tell me Stu, if you wished to go to Canada, the USA or Australia - are you free to do so?"

What's that got to do with anything? It simply doesn't work the same, if it did then why vote against the free movement of people for the EU? The freedom of movement the EU gives us facilitates collaboration in science, in fact so much so it's not an issue when we work with our European partners.


"What Stu is describing does not equate to the end of the world"

You said it was the end of the world, not me. I said it was very possibly the end of seamless and effective collaboration between scientists working across the EU.