why is it that I've seen a lot of people comming out and saying that the UK should stay and giving (reasonable?) reasons for their point. meanwhile I have not heard a convincing argument for leaving from anyone.
this is true, but also something to do with the fact that almost all leave arguments look like selfish children making excuses for why they where never taught to share
1. The EU undermines British sovereignty and democracy, placing unelected bureaucrats above our own parliament. 2. The EU takes vast sums of money from Britain that we simply don't see again. In 2015 that figure was £8.5 billion. That money could be better spent on the health service, science funding, investment, or tackling out massive defecit. 3. The EU is not a country. It acts like a country, has a flag, an anthem, a (albeit powerless) parliament, but it is not a country. However, a nation is the highest level on which democracy can operate without problems. People in the UK see others in the UK as fellow Brits and are happy to accept their votes, pay tax to support them etc. but you cannot expect the same to be true for foreigners without giving rise to mutual resentment (as shown very well in the Eurozone, with the resentment between Germany and the southern EU countries) 4. The EU is run by corporations. Brussels has the highest per-capita rate of corporate lobbyists out of any city in the world. The result is that a lot of legislation is effectively drafted by big companies to introduce regulations that they already meet and can mass-produce for. A good example is the EU's low-energy light bulb regulations, drafted by Phillips, which, once ratified, meant that Phillips was the only company with the means to mass produce light bulbs that meet standards, pushing out all competition. This is bad for business and bad for consumers. 5. The EU is anti-democratic. You only need to look at the countless referenda that it had ignored in order to force its agenda. The Greeks had a referendum on austerity, they voted for no more, and the EU forced it on them anyway. The Lisbon treaty was rejected in Ireland by referendum, and the response was to make Ireland vote again until they 'got it right'. In the words of European Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker, "There can be no democratic choice against the treaties". There are many other examples I've not mentioned. 6. Leaving would allow the UK to control its borders, deport terrorists, freely make trade deals with other countries, enact policies that are illegal by EU law (e.g. nationalise the railways, something I'm not for but should be decided democratically), pursue better relations with other nations, fully control our own tax policies, and distance ourselves from the lumbering failure called the Eurozone. Pro-EU arguments either rely on hypotheticals, lies, or assumptions that countries can't come to agreements bilaterally.
Tezzlor again.. all your outlining is why we should never help any one, we already control our boarders, The greeks where told ok, you can go alone if you want and their leaders said no, like that was recently, do you not even remember? seriously
So I'm not from the UK, but I would like to make a small rebuttal. 1. Fully agree. This is the biggest issue with the EU. 2. There seems to be a lot fair amount of data that suggest that leaving the EU will make your GDP drop by more than the sum that you are currently paying - meaning that you would, in a sense, "pay more" to leave than to stay. (again, there's a fair amount of debate on this, but there seems to be a reasonable amount of data that indicates leaving the EU will lead to a drop in GDP.) Disclaimer: I am not an expert in economics nor am I from the UK. I do not have a side in this discussion, as this is an issue that the UK needs to determine themselves - and what they do might depend more on national pride than economics.
Thanks for sharing. I'm an Italian student of Astrophysics and I have collegues who are in Netherlands and Germany and they moved very easily in terms of bureaucracy for phD positions. I wonder if such a mobility would be granted to the UK even after it left from the EU. The ability to build a net of connections is what makes EU a scientific resource and it would surely be harder to produce so much new scientific results if scientists are sort of set apart..
4 years have passed and the UK have left the EU. However there is strong support for a referendum for Scotland to leave the UK to become an independent nation and join the EU. There is also growing support for Irish reunification. The EU is doing better and better.
Regarding to some of the comments, I just don't understand nationalism. Why do people in your own country deserve better than anyone else? The borders being where they are today is just by chance. Countless wars and politics in the past have shaped the borders, which have could have easily been different. I'd be glad to hear from people why the welfare of the people from their country, is more important than the welfare of anyone else? Why is it more important to work for improving your country than it is for improving the world?
mandraxhair You are always bound by someone else's rules. It doesn't matter if you are talking about a person, a company, a city, a state, a country, a federation, an empire, or a coalition of countries, you are never completely free. I think that people are attached to their countries in a similar way that people are attached to their gangs. It creates ridiculous situations, where people who live in a certain part of a neighborhood, are obligated to hate people who's crime was to be born a few hundred meters west from them. I don't think that patriotism is very different. There are valid points on both sides of the seperation debate, but the argument that "Britain is for the British", is one that I just don't get. If you (not you specifially) accept this argument, you must also agree that Scotland should be ruled by Scots. If you don't, I'd really like to hear an argument for that.
mandraxhair I'm not arguing for either side here. My problem was with the "Britain for the British" argument in particular, and patriotism in general. I'm not arguing for anarchy or despotism either. I'm not sure that democracy, at least in the form it is today is as good as it gets, but it's the best we have now. My thoughts about this side of the issue are that as long as the governing system gives the most benefit for the most people, the better it is, regardless of how physically or emotionally close they are to you. Of course it's easier to say it than do it, but I think that it's an ideal worth striving for. About the subject matter, I just don't know enough about the EU to make an informed argument either way. Obviously (if you've read anything that I've written anyway) I think that globalization is good in theory. There are many factors why it's very problematic in practice, and most of them are due to how people are, and due to how greed and callousness are rewarded.
Interesting challenge. Ok. A thought experiment of sorts. Some people have messy houses, and some people have neat houses. So lets get everyone to agree that we are all going to clean up our neighbors house (the one to the left of us). We're going to go through all of their belongings and decide what to keep, what to throw away, and decide how it's all going to be organized with the promise that at the end of the day everyone will have a neat and clean house. Everyone _should_ be happy with this arrangement...in theory. But the fact remains that you know your house better than anyone else. You know what you want to keep or throw away because _you_ know yourself better than a stranger, or even your neighbor, and they're _your things_ that you worked for and value, that have a special meaning for you. You couldn't expect your neighbor to appreciate or understand it and in the end you'd just be left resenting your neighbor and trying to find your stuff. But if everyone cleans their own house first and _then_ ask their neighbor if they'd like some help cleaning theirs, _then_ and only then, could we ever hope to have an improved house, neighborhood, community, nation and World. You can't help anybody until you help yourself first.
***** That would be taking it to the extreme. If you take my point to the extreme, you get communism, and we all know how that worked. Furthermore, people are inhererntly different, and given an even playing field, people will end up in different places, and rightly, a genius who worked his ass off to the benefit of mankind, would be reluctant to earn as little as a someone who contributes nothing. I have plenty of things to say about socialism, capitalism, even taxes and governments, but to stay on topic, and to further clarify my position, I'll address just my original point right now. In a nutshell, my problem is with people think of their countries as an extension of themselves. I find it puzzling when people attribute sport victories by members of their countries, city, school, etc. to themselves. They compare how strong is the military of their countries is to theirs, as if it's a dick measuring competition. Another problem in my opinion is that most societies value the wrong things. In the best of places, money and power (to make others do what you want them to do) are the metrics for success. If you combine these two, you get people who think that their country is special, and their country deserves more than others. Even if it doesn't affect a person directly, they will think that people from other countries are inferior, and don't deserve to live in their country.
Chilledfish There are many ways to look at it, to be sure. I was just trying to address the basic, most fundamental, sociological reason for nationalism. Which is both practical, necessary, and to no small part, tribalistic in nature. Once all of that is said and explained, I too have to shake my head in disbelief over some of the attitudes that you describe so well. I happen to believe that every country _is_ special in one way or another, so I think some national pride is deserved by all. However I do also realize that conditions are such in some countries that the people have to look for another nation to move to for either survival, or just opportunity. ...the sports thing, though...I just can't wrap my head around that one... :)
Really enjoy these types of discussions. It’s fun to see scientists discuss cultural and societal issues that impacts their science. I like seeing more human sides of the scientists.
Then after you leave the EU, petition your government to divert some of the funds they were previously throwing in the EU money pit to science instead. You see, you *can* petition your own government for such things, unlike the EU, which you cannot influence in any way at all.
***** I don't disagree with that, I'd just point out that what I said literally means that other countries are sending money over here for us to do science with and so this is a significantly cheaper option in regards to science, other issues being separate.
You can petition the EU, in fact in three ways. The Commission, the Parliament and through your own government. Everybody can do that. I do not say it is effective, but it is not effective on a national level either.
*PLEASE DO AN UPDATE ON THIS* now the UK's had done Brexit and its all going smoothly with no problems that anyone can detect - they are ven having celebrations in the street in Northern Ireland...
The European Union, after a promising start in past decades, is now failing... hard. It's no longer a union of the people. But that's not a reason to abandon it - it's a reason to fix it. (Of course, this is just my personal opinion.)
Concur. The trouble is that there will be no box on the ballot paper marked "Fix it". The only options will be leave (step into the scary unknown) or stay (more of the same).
+Jason “cyberspace entity” Doe _But that's not a reason to abandon it - it's a reason to fix it._ Do you have any idea how to do that? As far as I know, there are no legal means to reform the EU, and none of the people I have asked have been able to point any such means out. The European Commission is an elected executive body and the European Parliament, thought democratically elected, cannot propose legislation, so it cannot force the Commission to do anything it doesn't want to do.
The way the European Comission is composed is actually a major point of criticism, as their members are appointed by the goverments of the individual member states and not by the parliament itself, which in the end, is quite undemocratic. There have been attempts to reform this matter, but guess who blocked it... The UK.
Democracy is a strange concept in that it can be freely and peacefully be given away with a single vote, which maybe based on relatively trivial reasons, but reestablishing democracy once it has been lost invariably involves violent revolution associated with considerable suffering and many untimely deaths. So anything that might degrade our democracy should be avoided at all costs. In my view, given the direction in which an unreformed EU is heading, the safest option is to leave.
It is not so often that Brady asks stupid questions, but those around 3:50 about non-euro contacts suffering because of EU existence - that was dumb and lacked logic, no wonder professor said that question is not really valid.
I still think it was an interesting question - pro-Brexit people always say the UK will be fine without the EU and can exist in relationships with the EU just like other nations - so I wondered how Mike felt about his relationships with the "other nations". He then said, after additional questions, that he felt they were inferior. - Brady
I think he could've pursued the line further. You can make trade deals without being in the EU. Why not science deals? It's not worth it to make large sections of the planet act as one country for purposes that a lot of people disagree with.
I agree with prof. Merrifield that there are things which cant measure by money. I am also EU inhabitant but not from UK. There are so many problems with EU. I truly believe that the idea is great but the execution is way way worse. I believe that UK pays significant and important role as, lets say, Ger-Fr side. But whatever you decide, I hope you will be satisfied.
Can you enlighten us with the "so many problems" EU has? I for one have been (so far, in my 25 years) to 3 countries: Bulgaria (shortly, in a 1 day visit to Sofia in the middle of the night as a fun tour with a friend in his car; was very nice to just present a few documents and not spend 3 hours being rect'd in the screening); Italy, Milano (worked for 6 months where I had professional training and exchanged ideas and experience with people from there) and now in Dublin, Ireland where I work for one of the biggest companies in the world in IT -- trust me, they paid quite a lot for me to be here, and the effort alone tells a lot, they also get people from Turkey and other places which require a Visa and it's not so fun for them ;-) but they have to do it because they are out of brains within Ireland so instead of loosing people, you grab a contract with them and keep them working in your country boosting it's economy via taxes and keeping the private companies rolling out. If I wasn't in EU then I don't think I'd be here in the first place, dealing with all that bullshit for work permit (friends from Ukraine and other places are finding it quite difficult of a process especially because it undermines your security: no work permit = you leave the country) and other benefits (health, bureaucracy with the country from where I come from: taxes etc.) So as an individual I prefer the EU: I treat all countries as customers, you don't want my expertize? No problem, even if it's the country that is native to me and where I was born. I go off to a different one where my potential can be realized and without much hassle, just my id and bank account (which by the way, is also affected via EU regulation). And many other benefits to list here...
Alexandru Gheorghe You seem to confuse EU with Schengen or EEC (Common market). 30 years old, still true sitcom: Hacker: Europe is a community of nations, dedicated towards one goal. Sir Humphrey: Oh, ha ha ha. Hacker: May we share the joke, Humphrey? Sir Humphrey: Oh Minister, let's look at this objectively. It is a game played for national interests, and always was. Why do you suppose we went into it? Hacker: To strengthen the brotherhood of free Western nations. Sir Humphrey: Oh really. We went in to screw the French by splitting them off from the Germans. Hacker: So why did the French go into it, then? Sir Humphrey: Well, to protect their inefficient farmers from commercial competition. Hacker: That certainly doesn't apply to the Germans. Sir Humphrey: No, no. They went in to cleanse themselves of genocide and apply for readmission to the human race. Hacker: I never heard such appalling cynicism! At least the small nations didn't go into it for selfish reasons. Sir Humphrey: Oh really? Luxembourg is in it for the perks; the capital of the EEC, all that foreign money pouring in. Hacker: Very sensible central location. Sir Humphrey: With the administration in Brussels and the Parliament in Strasbourg?
Wouldn't Israel count as a "controlled experiment"? Sure, it's a lot smaller than the UK. But, at the same time, despite being outside the EU, it has been spearheading research in multiple fields. Their success in CERN, which Prof. Merrifield mentions at 8:28, makes an excellent counter-argument to his whole point. And that's from a country that's under constant threats of boycotts. UK has a much better starting position, and therefore has no excuse to lagging behind.
Israel is, indeed, an interesting case. Indeed, a significant part of its success has come from being a part of many of the EU's science programmes. This raises the obvious question of why the UK doesn't just follow the same route, but my understanding is that this would almost certainly not work. Israel's agreements are built on a historic third-party relationship that the EU is fairly relaxed about (a) because Israel is a small country so does not really distort the over-all system by its involvement, and (b) because it is geographically distinct, so again its interaction with the EU is naturally limited. Given its position and its very different history, I think it highly unlikely that the UK would be able to stay involved in EU science on the same terms as Israel, and would much more likely end up in a similar position to Switzerland (see below).
Watching from Australia, I appreciate your role, Brady, in countering the views of the interviewee with the questions you asked. This is a much better alternative than simply agreeing with everything the Proffs said. Well done. p.s. I hope the UK remain
I have to say that Brady is an excellent journalist. Except for few instances of false arguments, his questions are really hard and he plays 'the devils advocate' really well.
What is sovereignty worth to you? 10% funding? a bit more hassle in paperwork? Unfortunate scientists are so dependent on EU funds. An ever centralizing union, that discourages national sovereignty
You will never be sovereign. UK signed hundreds treaties regulating trade, medicine, travel and international laws. You always lose some sovereignty when you join a group. Is it worth it? Scientists think it is. Centralization is usually better, that's why we have large countries and not medieval independent cities. That's why you have UK and not Scotland, Wales, Ireland and England. You can be truly independent only on completely isolated island, when you cut off any trade and contact with other countries. Do you really want this?
How many of the laws passed by the British parliament that do not relate to the Inner Market are 'forced' onto you by the EU? The numbers in Denmark in the more important areas like Welfare Benefits, Healthcare and Education ranges from 0 to just above 10%, which hardly makes it invasive.
What is sovereignty at the end of the day? choosing which of the 2 groups of people get to make a few decisions that look an awful lot like each other?
***** Every time a major, continent wide Union has tried to centralize its power by taking away sovereignty from member countries, it has collapsed, terribly. Unless you are someone who would have discouraged Hungarian revolutionaries in the 50's for standing up against a vile Union
I am pretty pro-leave, at the very least I see the good side of it and really like that good side, as well as know the negative sides. But can I say, Mike Merrifield is a top bloke. Really. Love this guy. So level headed, so nice to listen to, so balanced in his views, so fair to both sides, not adversarial, sarcastic, bitter like most scientists. Makes me want to go study under him!
Now take this argument concerning science in the UK and apply it to all the other parts of society. Exiting the EU would be weaken the UKs position in all those other parts. And for what? Nationalist pride? Seems selfish. Brits shouldn't be asking if its best for the UK to be in the EU or not, they should be asking is it the best for the EU to have the UK.
I can't help but like Professor Merrifield. As far as his reasoning goes, I can't help but think that he's in favor of remaining in the EU just so he won't have to do a little extra paperwork. Hating paperwork myself and recognizing a fellow, fundamentally lazy, person. His appeal to the easy way out...maybe even getting out of the office a little early on Friday...just might work for me. Which ever way the UK decides to go, best of luck to the lot of you.
I guess the great "should we or shouldn't we?" is now over. I can't help but to think that the split will be better for the UK in the long run. ...and it's better to get out now before the rest of the EU collapses.
do you scientists choose what science projects you work on of your own accord , or not?.... as weak in the principle your arguments for the eu was here , rationally your arguments were way better than anything thunderf00t ever came up with.....
Nah, that's Brady's go-to style. He plays the devil's advocate and challenges people he's interviewing. At first I thought it was rather disrespectful to the people he's talking to, but I've come to really see the value of it.
I hear that a lot - where is your line in the sand? Do the people of Milton Keynes get to make different laws to the people from Bristol? What about the people in south and north Bristol? I am always open to persuasion - but to me there are just tiers of governance. I don't know where the lines should be drawn, but I need something more than just saying "British". Is that not the sort of jingoism that British people would mock if it came from across the Atlantic. - Brady
Personally I have always viewed that local issues should be handle on a local level, national issues on a national level, and global issues should be handle on a global level. Of course in reality it can be a bit hard to draw a line when these issues are local or national for example. But I do think we need multiple tiers and we need to have a continuation discussion on that matter. Simple slogans wont solve this issue.
I hold to the radical notion that the notions one holds should at least be informed by facts and tempered by honest perspective. As an EU member, Britian has a lot of influence. We routinely block policies we don't like. We negotiate exceptions to suit us. We sometimes outright ignore the European courts, and often it's only the threat of losing trade that compels us to comply to certain directives. Of course, you don't need to be a member of the EU to be subject to such threats - they're called sanctions, and sanctions are used as a political tool of persuasion on a daily basis all over the world.
As if proof were needed that if you want a scientist to vote for you then just wave some cash under his nose. All other social, political and economic considerations go out the window.
Yeah that's right professor, that is the issue which most vexes and concerns people about the EU, that one of the seven branches of its administration occasionally moves offices. Your argument is of course correct. This referendum is not about democracy, liberty, sovereignty, corruption, economic distortion, the brutal effects of EU policy on the poorest most vulnerable members of society, the welfare state, security, national identity, a failing protectionist trading bloc in an expanding global economy, political accountability or indeed whether this country is merely an aircraft carrier for corporate self-interest, merchant banks and career politicians. Forget all that, we should focus on how easy the paperwork is if the professor wishes to apply for a grant. I don't know what Brady said to convince you or Martyn that this video represented a good idea, but he was in error. This channel should stay in its lane. Your job here is to describe the rotation of galaxies and stars. Anything else represents a grossly misguided abuse of the subscriber's trust.
The UK is deciding if it wants to leave the European Union as a political and law making body. This came about due to an election promise that if they gained a majority in parliament they would hold a referendum ( it was a way to appease the voters, they did not expect to win a majority and expected to have a minority or coalition government. ) There are good arguments for both sides though some elements are not really helping like financial predictions which considering some of the organisations cant predict what's going to happen in the markets in the next 3 months I doubt anything said can be trustworthy.
Well it was to begin with a trade agreement for coal and steel that over time had amendments and additions for economic and law making capacity, including the single currency. What it does today is make law for all member states, this is one of the big problems the commission is an unelected body that holds allot of power, little financial oversight and no method of repealing laws. The thing is this issue that will fester like a open wound, the huge centralisation and weakening of states are causing friction in other country's as well. France, Poland and other nations have formed a more extreme response in the form of nationalist political party's likely to gain power or gaining power, Greece and some other member states are economically weak and Greece in particular may not recover for many many years and wont trust the EU in future. This whole idea goes back to the end of the second world war a method to stop future wars between European states ignoring the fact the UN exists and NATO
What misinformation. OMG I do not know where to start. The Commission is influential, not powerful. It is unelected, but every Commissioner must go through the EU Parliament to get approval before starting. Also the Commission can be sent home by the EU Parliament. Furthermore every member of the Commission was put forward by their national government in the first place. Secondly, the EU has about as many civil servants as a big city has. That is a very, very small number. The financial oversight rules within the EU are stricter than in any member states of the EU. Also the oversight the EU exerts over the funding it does is there (although not very strict, I admit as member states usually do not really cooperate and the EU itself has very few civil servants). The EU has no influence on how people think about the EU, not in the UK, or in Greece or in France. I cannot follow that argument. On preventing wars, the EU is needed to prevent wars inside the EU. NATO is needed to prevent wars coming from outside European Union (roughly said). That is a huge difference.
I have no dog in this fight but I would like to make a comment. If university professors had the job of running a country, that country would be totally f*cked. Most have never had a job in the private sector, most have a job for life, they all get their income from the government, their total way of life depends on bigger government and accepting money from the average guy. They are necessary for the betterment of the world, but they should not decide how the country is governed other than one man one vote. The problem I see with the EU form here is, one man one vote has now become one huge bureaucracy, no vote. Professors work in a bureaucracy and see no problem with them. Go interview a fisherman and see what his opinion is, I would find the contrast very interesting. Good luck GB, no matter how the vote goes, the people of the USA respect and admire your country and only wish you the best.
why is it that I've seen a lot of people comming out and saying that the UK should stay and giving (reasonable?) reasons for their point. meanwhile I have not heard a convincing argument for leaving from anyone.
Because of the types media you expose yourself to
this is true, but also something to do with the fact that almost all leave arguments look like selfish children making excuses for why they where never taught to share
1. The EU undermines British sovereignty and democracy, placing unelected bureaucrats above our own parliament.
2. The EU takes vast sums of money from Britain that we simply don't see again. In 2015 that figure was £8.5 billion. That money could be better spent on the health service, science funding, investment, or tackling out massive defecit.
3. The EU is not a country. It acts like a country, has a flag, an anthem, a (albeit powerless) parliament, but it is not a country. However, a nation is the highest level on which democracy can operate without problems. People in the UK see others in the UK as fellow Brits and are happy to accept their votes, pay tax to support them etc. but you cannot expect the same to be true for foreigners without giving rise to mutual resentment (as shown very well in the Eurozone, with the resentment between Germany and the southern EU countries)
4. The EU is run by corporations. Brussels has the highest per-capita rate of corporate lobbyists out of any city in the world. The result is that a lot of legislation is effectively drafted by big companies to introduce regulations that they already meet and can mass-produce for. A good example is the EU's low-energy light bulb regulations, drafted by Phillips, which, once ratified, meant that Phillips was the only company with the means to mass produce light bulbs that meet standards, pushing out all competition. This is bad for business and bad for consumers.
5. The EU is anti-democratic. You only need to look at the countless referenda that it had ignored in order to force its agenda. The Greeks had a referendum on austerity, they voted for no more, and the EU forced it on them anyway. The Lisbon treaty was rejected in Ireland by referendum, and the response was to make Ireland vote again until they 'got it right'. In the words of European Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker, "There can be no democratic choice against the treaties". There are many other examples I've not mentioned.
6. Leaving would allow the UK to control its borders, deport terrorists, freely make trade deals with other countries, enact policies that are illegal by EU law (e.g. nationalise the railways, something I'm not for but should be decided democratically), pursue better relations with other nations, fully control our own tax policies, and distance ourselves from the lumbering failure called the Eurozone.
Pro-EU arguments either rely on hypotheticals, lies, or assumptions that countries can't come to agreements bilaterally.
Tezzlor
again.. all your outlining is why we should never help any one, we already control our boarders, The greeks where told ok, you can go alone if you want and their leaders said no, like that was recently, do you not even remember? seriously
So I'm not from the UK, but I would like to make a small rebuttal.
1. Fully agree. This is the biggest issue with the EU.
2. There seems to be a lot fair amount of data that suggest that leaving the EU will make your GDP drop by more than the sum that you are currently paying - meaning that you would, in a sense, "pay more" to leave than to stay. (again, there's a fair amount of debate on this, but there seems to be a reasonable amount of data that indicates leaving the EU will lead to a drop in GDP.)
Disclaimer: I am not an expert in economics nor am I from the UK. I do not have a side in this discussion, as this is an issue that the UK needs to determine themselves - and what they do might depend more on national pride than economics.
Thanks for sharing. I'm an Italian student of Astrophysics and I have collegues who are in Netherlands and Germany and they moved very easily in terms of bureaucracy for phD positions. I wonder if such a mobility would be granted to the UK even after it left from the EU. The ability to build a net of connections is what makes EU a scientific resource and it would surely be harder to produce so much new scientific results if scientists are sort of set apart..
Well put!
thanks!
sorry for my bad english though
if you're not sure what to do, listen to smart people
no he did not. Follow your argument to the contrary. So maybe it is better to follow not smart people with biases?
Yep. Beautiful. Reductio ad absurdum ;)
Yeah, he knows about Physics, therefore his political views must be sound.
@@ronaldderooij1774 Straw man.
'Smart people' are clearly swayed by money.
Dear UK - Citizen, please do not leave our EU!
The EU should burn. Once the Uk leave should help with EU falling apart.
4 years have passed and the UK have left the EU. However there is strong support for a referendum for Scotland to leave the UK to become an independent nation and join the EU. There is also growing support for Irish reunification. The EU is doing better and better.
Similar to divorce ... sometimes a union is worth trying to fix before throwing in the towel.
it wasn't the EU who decided to divorce. but it's ok. EU will keep the best parts. northern ireland and scotland.
Regarding to some of the comments, I just don't understand nationalism. Why do people in your own country deserve better than anyone else?
The borders being where they are today is just by chance. Countless wars and politics in the past have shaped the borders, which have could have easily been different.
I'd be glad to hear from people why the welfare of the people from their country, is more important than the welfare of anyone else? Why is it more important to work for improving your country than it is for improving the world?
mandraxhair
You are always bound by someone else's rules. It doesn't matter if you are talking about a person, a company, a city, a state, a country, a federation, an empire, or a coalition of countries, you are never completely free.
I think that people are attached to their countries in a similar way that people are attached to their gangs. It creates ridiculous situations, where people who live in a certain part of a neighborhood, are obligated to hate people who's crime was to be born a few hundred meters west from them.
I don't think that patriotism is very different.
There are valid points on both sides of the seperation debate, but the argument that "Britain is for the British", is one that I just don't get.
If you (not you specifially) accept this argument, you must also agree that Scotland should be ruled by Scots. If you don't, I'd really like to hear an argument for that.
mandraxhair
I'm not arguing for either side here. My problem was with the "Britain for the British" argument in particular, and patriotism in general.
I'm not arguing for anarchy or despotism either. I'm not sure that democracy, at least in the form it is today is as good as it gets, but it's the best we have now.
My thoughts about this side of the issue are that as long as the governing system gives the most benefit for the most people, the better it is, regardless of how physically or emotionally close they are to you.
Of course it's easier to say it than do it, but I think that it's an ideal worth striving for.
About the subject matter, I just don't know enough about the EU to make an informed argument either way.
Obviously (if you've read anything that I've written anyway) I think that globalization is good in theory. There are many factors why it's very problematic in practice, and most of them are due to how people are, and due to how greed and callousness are rewarded.
Interesting challenge.
Ok. A thought experiment of sorts.
Some people have messy houses, and some people have neat houses.
So lets get everyone to agree that we are all going to clean up our neighbors house (the one to the left of us). We're going to go through all of their belongings and decide what to keep, what to throw away, and decide how it's all going to be organized with the promise that at the end of the day everyone will have a neat and clean house.
Everyone _should_ be happy with this arrangement...in theory.
But the fact remains that you know your house better than anyone else. You know what you want to keep or throw away because _you_ know yourself better than a stranger, or even your neighbor, and they're _your things_ that you worked for and value, that have a special meaning for you. You couldn't expect your neighbor to appreciate or understand it and in the end you'd just be left resenting your neighbor and trying to find your stuff.
But if everyone cleans their own house first and _then_ ask their neighbor if they'd like some help cleaning theirs, _then_ and only then, could we ever hope to have an improved house, neighborhood, community, nation and World.
You can't help anybody until you help yourself first.
*****
That would be taking it to the extreme. If you take my point to the extreme, you get communism, and we all know how that worked. Furthermore, people are inhererntly different, and given an even playing field, people will end up in different places, and rightly, a genius who worked his ass off to the benefit of mankind, would be reluctant to earn as little as a someone who contributes nothing.
I have plenty of things to say about socialism, capitalism, even taxes and governments, but to stay on topic, and to further clarify my position, I'll address just my original point right now.
In a nutshell, my problem is with people think of their countries as an extension of themselves.
I find it puzzling when people attribute sport victories by members of their countries, city, school, etc. to themselves. They compare how strong is the military of their countries is to theirs, as if it's a dick measuring competition.
Another problem in my opinion is that most societies value the wrong things. In the best of places, money and power (to make others do what you want them to do) are the metrics for success.
If you combine these two, you get people who think that their country is special, and their country deserves more than others.
Even if it doesn't affect a person directly, they will think that people from other countries are inferior, and don't deserve to live in their country.
Chilledfish
There are many ways to look at it, to be sure. I was just trying to address the basic, most fundamental, sociological reason for nationalism. Which is both practical, necessary, and to no small part, tribalistic in nature.
Once all of that is said and explained, I too have to shake my head in disbelief over some of the attitudes that you describe so well.
I happen to believe that every country _is_ special in one way or another, so I think some national pride is deserved by all. However I do also realize that conditions are such in some countries that the people have to look for another nation to move to for either survival, or just opportunity.
...the sports thing, though...I just can't wrap my head around that one... :)
Really enjoy these types of discussions. It’s fun to see scientists discuss cultural and societal issues that impacts their science. I like seeing more human sides of the scientists.
Brady did you happen to find anyone who you often work with who was in favour of Brexit?
Tidalx Apparently, no.
Its not even true that we pay more in (On science funding) than we get out. We get way more out, in science funding, than we put in
Then after you leave the EU, petition your government to divert some of the funds they were previously throwing in the EU money pit to science instead.
You see, you *can* petition your own government for such things, unlike the EU, which you cannot influence in any way at all.
***** I don't disagree with that, I'd just point out that what I said literally means that other countries are sending money over here for us to do science with and so this is a significantly cheaper option in regards to science, other issues being separate.
You can petition the EU, in fact in three ways. The Commission, the Parliament and through your own government. Everybody can do that. I do not say it is effective, but it is not effective on a national level either.
Interesting. I would never have thought of this as an effect of Brexit.
*PLEASE DO AN UPDATE ON THIS* now the UK's had done Brexit and its all going smoothly with no problems that anyone can detect - they are ven having celebrations in the street in Northern Ireland...
No Problems? They are running out of everything.
Brexit has been such a success, cheaper food prices, cheaper energy prices, happy fishermen, happy farmers, illegal immigration stopped Oh Wait!
The European Union, after a promising start in past decades, is now failing... hard. It's no longer a union of the people.
But that's not a reason to abandon it - it's a reason to fix it.
(Of course, this is just my personal opinion.)
Concur. The trouble is that there will be no box on the ballot paper marked "Fix it". The only options will be leave (step into the scary unknown) or stay (more of the same).
it's a shame that the eastern countries went in for the benefits and now complain at the problems
+Jason “cyberspace entity” Doe
_But that's not a reason to abandon it - it's a reason to fix it._
Do you have any idea how to do that? As far as I know, there are no legal means to reform the EU, and none of the people I have asked have been able to point any such means out. The European Commission is an elected executive body and the European Parliament, thought democratically elected, cannot propose legislation, so it cannot force the Commission to do anything it doesn't want to do.
The way the European Comission is composed is actually a major point of criticism, as their members are appointed by the goverments of the individual member states and not by the parliament itself, which in the end, is quite undemocratic. There have been attempts to reform this matter, but guess who blocked it... The UK.
There is no fixing something that works the way it is supposed to.
I find on average the ‘haves’ are for staying and the ‘have nots’ are for leaving! And there is a lot of ‘have nots’ in the Britain and the EU
I'm a leaver, however, these arguments are very sound
2024 - still a leaver, happy with the outcome and the broken promisees?
Fantastic interviewing by Brady.
It's not in the interest of lawyers to stay in the ECU. More would have to chase ambulances,
TODAY IS A GOOD DAY!
So what are scientists willing to exchange for the price of a grant or being on an euro email contact list?
Democracy is a strange concept in that it can be freely and peacefully be given away with a single vote, which maybe based on relatively trivial reasons, but reestablishing democracy once it has been lost invariably involves violent revolution associated with considerable suffering and many untimely deaths. So anything that might degrade our democracy should be avoided at all costs. In my view, given the direction in which an unreformed EU is heading, the safest option is to leave.
It is not so often that Brady asks stupid questions, but those around 3:50 about non-euro contacts suffering because of EU existence - that was dumb and lacked logic, no wonder professor said that question is not really valid.
I still think it was an interesting question - pro-Brexit people always say the UK will be fine without the EU and can exist in relationships with the EU just like other nations - so I wondered how Mike felt about his relationships with the "other nations". He then said, after additional questions, that he felt they were inferior.
- Brady
He is playing the devil's advocate - very important on political interviews.
I think he could've pursued the line further. You can make trade deals without being in the EU. Why not science deals?
It's not worth it to make large sections of the planet act as one country for purposes that a lot of people disagree with.
I completely agree.
You'll better get your fax machine and some spare time ready to get those treaties working.
I agree with prof. Merrifield that there are things which cant measure by money. I am also EU inhabitant but not from UK. There are so many problems with EU. I truly believe that the idea is great but the execution is way way worse. I believe that UK pays significant and important role as, lets say, Ger-Fr side. But whatever you decide, I hope you will be satisfied.
Can you enlighten us with the "so many problems" EU has? I for one have been (so far, in my 25 years) to 3 countries: Bulgaria (shortly, in a 1 day visit to Sofia in the middle of the night as a fun tour with a friend in his car; was very nice to just present a few documents and not spend 3 hours being rect'd in the screening); Italy, Milano (worked for 6 months where I had professional training and exchanged ideas and experience with people from there) and now in Dublin, Ireland where I work for one of the biggest companies in the world in IT -- trust me, they paid quite a lot for me to be here, and the effort alone tells a lot, they also get people from Turkey and other places which require a Visa and it's not so fun for them ;-) but they have to do it because they are out of brains within Ireland so instead of loosing people, you grab a contract with them and keep them working in your country boosting it's economy via taxes and keeping the private companies rolling out.
If I wasn't in EU then I don't think I'd be here in the first place, dealing with all that bullshit for work permit (friends from Ukraine and other places are finding it quite difficult of a process especially because it undermines your security: no work permit = you leave the country) and other benefits (health, bureaucracy with the country from where I come from: taxes etc.)
So as an individual I prefer the EU: I treat all countries as customers, you don't want my expertize? No problem, even if it's the country that is native to me and where I was born. I go off to a different one where my potential can be realized and without much hassle, just my id and bank account (which by the way, is also affected via EU regulation).
And many other benefits to list here...
Alexandru Gheorghe
You seem to confuse EU with Schengen or EEC (Common market).
30 years old, still true sitcom:
Hacker: Europe is a community of nations, dedicated towards one goal.
Sir Humphrey: Oh, ha ha ha.
Hacker: May we share the joke, Humphrey?
Sir Humphrey: Oh Minister, let's look at this objectively. It is a game played for national interests, and always was. Why do you suppose we went into it?
Hacker: To strengthen the brotherhood of free Western nations.
Sir Humphrey: Oh really. We went in to screw the French by splitting them off from the Germans.
Hacker: So why did the French go into it, then?
Sir Humphrey: Well, to protect their inefficient farmers from commercial competition.
Hacker: That certainly doesn't apply to the Germans.
Sir Humphrey: No, no. They went in to cleanse themselves of genocide and apply for readmission to the human race.
Hacker: I never heard such appalling cynicism! At least the small nations didn't go into it for selfish reasons.
Sir Humphrey: Oh really? Luxembourg is in it for the perks; the capital of the EEC, all that foreign money pouring in.
Hacker: Very sensible central location.
Sir Humphrey: With the administration in Brussels and the Parliament in Strasbourg?
Wouldn't Israel count as a "controlled experiment"? Sure, it's a lot smaller than the UK. But, at the same time, despite being outside the EU, it has been spearheading research in multiple fields. Their success in CERN, which Prof. Merrifield mentions at 8:28, makes an excellent counter-argument to his whole point.
And that's from a country that's under constant threats of boycotts. UK has a much better starting position, and therefore has no excuse to lagging behind.
Israel is, indeed, an interesting case. Indeed, a significant part of its success has come from being a part of many of the EU's science programmes. This raises the obvious question of why the UK doesn't just follow the same route, but my understanding is that this would almost certainly not work. Israel's agreements are built on a historic third-party relationship that the EU is fairly relaxed about (a) because Israel is a small country so does not really distort the over-all system by its involvement, and (b) because it is geographically distinct, so again its interaction with the EU is naturally limited. Given its position and its very different history, I think it highly unlikely that the UK would be able to stay involved in EU science on the same terms as Israel, and would much more likely end up in a similar position to Switzerland (see below).
volume level is a little low.
Watching from Australia, I appreciate your role, Brady, in countering the views of the interviewee with the questions you asked. This is a much better alternative than simply agreeing with everything the Proffs said. Well done.
p.s. I hope the UK remain
I have to say that Brady is an excellent journalist. Except for few instances of false arguments, his questions are really hard and he plays 'the devils advocate' really well.
it seems that it could be any other organisation not only EU
I understand the importance of science and adding value, but not at the expense of everything else.
Less alarmist than Prof. Poliakoff.
What is sovereignty worth to you? 10% funding? a bit more hassle in paperwork?
Unfortunate scientists are so dependent on EU funds.
An ever centralizing union, that discourages national sovereignty
You will never be sovereign. UK signed hundreds treaties regulating trade, medicine, travel and international laws. You always lose some sovereignty when you join a group. Is it worth it? Scientists think it is.
Centralization is usually better, that's why we have large countries and not medieval independent cities. That's why you have UK and not Scotland, Wales, Ireland and England.
You can be truly independent only on completely isolated island, when you cut off any trade and contact with other countries. Do you really want this?
How many of the laws passed by the British parliament that do not relate to the Inner Market are 'forced' onto you by the EU? The numbers in Denmark in the more important areas like Welfare Benefits, Healthcare and Education ranges from 0 to just above 10%, which hardly makes it invasive.
What is sovereignty at the end of the day? choosing which of the 2 groups of people get to make a few decisions that look an awful lot like each other?
***** Every time a major, continent wide Union has tried to centralize its power by taking away sovereignty from member countries, it has collapsed, terribly.
Unless you are someone who would have discouraged Hungarian revolutionaries in the 50's for standing up against a vile Union
Since when has the US collapsed terribly?
Brady is such a good interviewer!
I am pretty pro-leave, at the very least I see the good side of it and really like that good side, as well as know the negative sides. But can I say, Mike Merrifield is a top bloke. Really. Love this guy. So level headed, so nice to listen to, so balanced in his views, so fair to both sides, not adversarial, sarcastic, bitter like most scientists. Makes me want to go study under him!
5:51 Subliminal red ute
Now take this argument concerning science in the UK and apply it to all the other parts of society. Exiting the EU would be weaken the UKs position in all those other parts. And for what? Nationalist pride? Seems selfish. Brits shouldn't be asking if its best for the UK to be in the EU or not, they should be asking is it the best for the EU to have the UK.
Sadly bad decisions were made.
Your out of the EU, get used to it.
There is something nice about professor talking. I just love it.
I can't help but like Professor Merrifield.
As far as his reasoning goes, I can't help but think that he's in favor of remaining in the EU just so he won't have to do a little extra paperwork.
Hating paperwork myself and recognizing a fellow, fundamentally lazy, person. His appeal to the easy way out...maybe even getting out of the office a little early on Friday...just might work for me.
Which ever way the UK decides to go, best of luck to the lot of you.
I guess the great "should we or shouldn't we?" is now over.
I can't help but to think that the split will be better for the UK in the long run.
...and it's better to get out now before the rest of the EU collapses.
do you scientists choose what science projects you work on of your own accord , or not?....
as weak in the principle your arguments for the eu was here , rationally your arguments were way better than anything thunderf00t ever came up with.....
Brady really seems to hate the EU
Nah, that's Brady's go-to style. He plays the devil's advocate and challenges people he's interviewing.
At first I thought it was rather disrespectful to the people he's talking to, but I've come to really see the value of it.
Brady seems to always ask awesome questions.
*web
I can't even conceive of why anyone would tolerate living under the rule of unelected bureaucrats.
House of lords?
EU? OUT OUT OUT !
I hold to a radical notion that the British should rule over Britain.
How do you define a British person? If someone lives in Britain, they are British... Or do you just mean you're a racist/xenophobe?
That's fair, but then you lose all the benefits you get from the union.
I hear that a lot - where is your line in the sand? Do the people of Milton Keynes get to make different laws to the people from Bristol? What about the people in south and north Bristol?
I am always open to persuasion - but to me there are just tiers of governance. I don't know where the lines should be drawn, but I need something more than just saying "British". Is that not the sort of jingoism that British people would mock if it came from across the Atlantic.
- Brady
Personally I have always viewed that local issues should be handle on a local level, national issues on a national level, and global issues should be handle on a global level. Of course in reality it can be a bit hard to draw a line when these issues are local or national for example. But I do think we need multiple tiers and we need to have a continuation discussion on that matter.
Simple slogans wont solve this issue.
I hold to the radical notion that the notions one holds should at least be informed by facts and tempered by honest perspective.
As an EU member, Britian has a lot of influence. We routinely block policies we don't like. We negotiate exceptions to suit us. We sometimes outright ignore the European courts, and often it's only the threat of losing trade that compels us to comply to certain directives. Of course, you don't need to be a member of the EU to be subject to such threats - they're called sanctions, and sanctions are used as a political tool of persuasion on a daily basis all over the world.
Prof. Merrifield is a great asset which we will need on Elon's Mars (peace be upon Tesla) after a sect of Islam renders Earth uninhabitable.
As if proof were needed that if you want a scientist to vote for you then just wave some cash under his nose. All other social, political and economic considerations go out the window.
you can always move to Scotland
Yeah that's right professor, that is the issue which most vexes and concerns people about the EU, that one of the seven branches of its administration occasionally moves offices.
Your argument is of course correct. This referendum is not about democracy, liberty, sovereignty, corruption, economic distortion, the brutal effects of EU policy on the poorest most vulnerable members of society, the welfare state, security, national identity, a failing protectionist trading bloc in an expanding global economy, political accountability or indeed whether this country is merely an aircraft carrier for corporate self-interest, merchant banks and career politicians. Forget all that, we should focus on how easy the paperwork is if the professor wishes to apply for a grant.
I don't know what Brady said to convince you or Martyn that this video represented a good idea, but he was in error. This channel should stay in its lane. Your job here is to describe the rotation of galaxies and stars. Anything else represents a grossly misguided abuse of the subscriber's trust.
I'm an American and what is this?
The UK is deciding if it wants to leave the European Union as a political and law making body.
This came about due to an election promise that if they gained a majority in parliament they would hold a referendum ( it was a way to appease the voters, they did not expect to win a majority and expected to have a minority or coalition government. )
There are good arguments for both sides though some elements are not really helping like financial predictions which considering some of the organisations cant predict what's going to happen in the markets in the next 3 months I doubt anything said can be trustworthy.
Thanks for the information. What does the EU actually do? I know the EU members share a currency, but that's it.
Well it was to begin with a trade agreement for coal and steel that over time had amendments and additions for economic and law making capacity, including the single currency.
What it does today is make law for all member states, this is one of the big problems the commission is an unelected body that holds allot of power, little financial oversight and no method of repealing laws.
The thing is this issue that will fester like a open wound, the huge centralisation and weakening of states are causing friction in other country's as well.
France, Poland and other nations have formed a more extreme response in the form of nationalist political party's likely to gain power or gaining power, Greece and some other member states are economically weak and Greece in particular may not recover for many many years and wont trust the EU in future.
This whole idea goes back to the end of the second world war a method to stop future wars between European states ignoring the fact the UN exists and NATO
Thanks for taking the time to tell me that.
What misinformation. OMG I do not know where to start. The Commission is influential, not powerful. It is unelected, but every Commissioner must go through the EU Parliament to get approval before starting. Also the Commission can be sent home by the EU Parliament. Furthermore every member of the Commission was put forward by their national government in the first place. Secondly, the EU has about as many civil servants as a big city has. That is a very, very small number. The financial oversight rules within the EU are stricter than in any member states of the EU. Also the oversight the EU exerts over the funding it does is there (although not very strict, I admit as member states usually do not really cooperate and the EU itself has very few civil servants). The EU has no influence on how people think about the EU, not in the UK, or in Greece or in France. I cannot follow that argument. On preventing wars, the EU is needed to prevent wars inside the EU. NATO is needed to prevent wars coming from outside European Union (roughly said). That is a huge difference.
I have no dog in this fight but I would like to make a comment. If university professors had the job of running a country, that country would be totally f*cked. Most have never had a job in the private sector, most have a job for life, they all get their income from the government, their total way of life depends on bigger government and accepting money from the average guy. They are necessary for the betterment of the world, but they should not decide how the country is governed other than one man one vote. The problem I see with the EU form here is, one man one vote has now become one huge bureaucracy, no vote. Professors work in a bureaucracy and see no problem with them. Go interview a fisherman and see what his opinion is, I would find the contrast very interesting. Good luck GB, no matter how the vote goes, the people of the USA respect and admire your country and only wish you the best.
really bad interview from bready