Trump has arrived in London

[Baron von Lotsov]

None of that changes the simple fact that UK science has and will suffer due to Brexit.



Euratom is seperate to the EU but is subject to the juristiction of the ECJ. Looks like there were also some potential issues around the ending of freedom of movement.







https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/euratom">https://www.instituteforgovernment.org. ... rs/euratom">https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/euratom

Thanks for the link.

The UK's intention to leave Euratom was formally outlined in the explanatory notes for the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017. The reasons for leaving have not been clearly specified, but staying in Euratom would require the UK to compromise on the negotiating positions set out by the Prime Minister in the Brexit white paper – particularly in regards to the European Court of Justice (ECJ).

That sounds like a  Maybot move, i.e. no real sense to it hence no clear specification.

[Barry]

Euratom is separate to the EU but is subject to the jurisdiction of the ECJ. Looks like there were also some potential issues around the ending of freedom of movement.

Additionally, Articles 96 and 97 of the Euratom Treaty require its members to ensure "freedom of employment" for nuclear specialists by "abolish[ing] all restrictions based on nationality".

You're right there. We are bringing in a points based immigration system, so the EU nuclear specialists will have to join the queue with the Yanks, Israelis and Russians.



By the way, has Trump arrived in London yet?  

[Ciaphas]

That does not make any sense at all. Here's a little quote from Wiki:







So it looks like we left it in addition to leaving the European Union and yet the referendum was asking us about leaving the EU and not Euratom. The ECJ is part of the EU, so that's fair game, but see what I mean. They sneaked that one without a whisper. I've never seen it mentioned on the News and only found out from an EU website.



Just to give you an example of where the EU would be without the UK, all those machines down at CERN like the LHC and other particle accelerators, and ITER itself, use a highly specialist superconducting cable for the magnets. The only place you can get it is Oxford, and the cable is named after the city as well. So it is as much their loss as it is ours. Of course if the EU wants to move entirely to clean energy in the future and what they call renewable energy, it must get ITER working. this is by no means an easy task and they need us leaving like a hole in the head.

None of that changes the simple fact that UK science has and will suffer due to Brexit.



Euratom is seperate to the EU but is subject to the juristiction of the ECJ. Looks like there were also some potential issues around the ending of freedom of movement.

Although Euratom is separate from the EU, it is governed by many of its institutions including the European Commission and its sits under the jurisdiction of the ECJ.



Additionally, Articles 96 and 97 of the Euratom Treaty require its members to ensure "freedom of employment" for nuclear specialists by "abolish[ing] all restrictions based on nationality".



Continued membership would run up against Theresa May's 'red lines' by preventing the UK Government from controlling the migration of these specialists and continuing ECJ jurisdiction over certain matters relating to nuclear energy and technology.

https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/euratom">https://www.instituteforgovernment.org. ... rs/euratom">https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/euratom

[Baron von Lotsov]

The decision to leave Euratom looks to be a consequence of leaving the ECJ so that can be directly attributed to Brexit, or ar least the governments desire for a hard Brexit which included no longer being subject to the ECJ.

That does not make any sense at all. Here's a little quote from Wiki:

It is legally distinct from the European Union (EU), but has the same membership, and is governed by many of the EU's institutions but is the only remaining community organization that is independent from the European Union and therefore outside the regulatory control of the European Parliament. Since 2014, Switzerland has also participated in Euratom programmes as an associated state.[2]

So it looks like we left it in addition to leaving the European Union and yet the referendum was asking us about leaving the EU and not Euratom. The ECJ is part of the EU, so that's fair game, but see what I mean. They sneaked that one without a whisper. I've never seen it mentioned on the News and only found out from an EU website.



Just to give you an example of where the EU would be without the UK, all those machines down at CERN like the LHC and other particle accelerators, and ITER itself, use a highly specialist superconducting cable for the magnets. The only place you can get it is Oxford, and the cable is named after the city as well. So it is as much their loss as it is ours. Of course if the EU wants to move entirely to clean energy in the future and what they call renewable energy, it must get ITER working. this is by no means an easy task and they need us leaving like a hole in the head.

[Barry]

Well, Caiaphas, as you well know, there does not need to be any loss of EU funding as the EU funds us 34pence from each 100p which we pay in.

We merely need a bit of restructuring. We could increase the "lost" EU funding to 51p (increase of 50%) whilst keeping the 49p to help offset the starvation caused by leaving the EU.  ::



Have a bit of common sense.



Has Trump left London, yet, by the way?

[Ciaphas]

Indeed, so we need to hang onto that. It's a very strong win-win situation and regarding space, our country is a world leader and the Europeans love working with us because it means that even with a relatively small budget compared to the US, they can still be pushing the limits of the science, and this is what makes students become scientists, and they then feed into their economy. All real economic growth is the result of scientific discovery combined with technical engineering. You just can't afford to mess with it. I do not know why we pulled out of Euratom. It has never really been talked about. Our country was the first in the world to commercially produce nuclear power.

Yet the Conservatives are messing with it because the Brexit is damaging UK science and scientists, and they have no clear plans for what will happen post-Brexit in terms of replacing lost EU funding and UK scientist collaborating with EU funded projects. Foreign scientists have been avoiding coming to the UK since Brexit because opportunities have been and will be reduced.



The decision to leave Euratom looks to be a consequence of leaving the ECJ so that can be directly attributed to Brexit, or ar least the governments desire for a hard Brexit which included no longer being subject to the ECJ.



It was talked about at great length by those worried about the impact, most notably in terms of healthcare, but those who were more concerned about leaving the EU either ignored or downplayed the issue.

[Baron von Lotsov]

Did a bit of reading and both CERN and the ESA are inter-governmental organisations which are seperate to the EU so they are bad examples given that access to them isn't dependent on EU membership.



There is a reason why scientists are overwhelmingly against Brexit. Brexit has negatively impacted scientists and UK science since the referendum result, and it is unclear what the situation will be post-Brexit.

Indeed, so we need to hang onto that. It's a very strong win-win situation and regarding space, our country is a world leader and the Europeans love working with us because it means that even with a relatively small budget compared to the US, they can still be pushing the limits of the science, and this is what makes students become scientists, and they then feed into their economy. All real economic growth is the result of scientific discovery combined with technical engineering. You just can't afford to mess with it. I do not know why we pulled out of Euratom. It has never really been talked about. Our country was the first in the world to commercially produce nuclear power.

[Ciaphas]

Hmm, well the thing is in major science projects the EU can't be boss like that or it would never get anywhere. Down in CERN you get quite a lot of involvement with American technology and science. It's not because of bureaucrats, but because they need them. When faced with the issue of it would never work without  their help then they soften their approach and become politer than that. You will see the same with space collaboration. The ESA is very grateful for all the help and expertise it has received from this country because this country can do stuff which it can't, like one particular example was landing a craft on an asteroid. Admittedly it did crash, but they did it anyway, and it goes down as the first to achieve such a thing. It makes the ESA look like it is ahead of the game. So my point is the only thing which can stop such great work as this is the politicians. The scientists themselves are doing a great job and naturally collaborate. You do not want this to come to an end, and it is the same with ITER as well. We really have to be involved. We have some of the tech that can make it work. We still hold the world record on nuclear fusion in Oxfordshire. Anyhow I'm convinced they will all come around to my view. It's just this area needs a bit of working on. We expect to be invited.

Did a bit of reading and both CERN and the ESA are inter-governmental organisations which are seperate to the EU so they are bad examples given that access to them isn't dependent on EU membership.



There is a reason why scientists are overwhelmingly against Brexit. Brexit has negatively impacted scientists and UK science since the referendum result, and it is unclear what the situation will be post-Brexit.

[Baron von Lotsov]

A close relationship with the EU means regulatory alignment without representation, and if the UK wants access to EU science that not only means paying for that access but also following the EU's rules on scientific collaboration. The UK will be faced with 'take it or leave it' when dealing with the EU post-Brexit.



Mr Johnson's deal indicates they don't want a close relationship with the EU, presumably indicating he wants one with the US.



His avoiding Mr Trump during the NATO meeting was likely just to avoid any election issues that would have arisen if he'd been all pally with Mr Trump.

Hmm, well the thing is in major science projects the EU can't be boss like that or it would never get anywhere. Down in CERN you get quite a lot of involvement with American technology and science. It's not because of bureaucrats, but because they need them. When faced with the issue of it would never work without  their help then they soften their approach and become politer than that. You will see the same with space collaboration. The ESA is very grateful for all the help and expertise it has received from this country because this country can do stuff which it can't, like one particular example was landing a craft on an asteroid. Admittedly it did crash, but they did it anyway, and it goes down as the first to achieve such a thing. It makes the ESA look like it is ahead of the game. So my point is the only thing which can stop such great work as this is the politicians. The scientists themselves are doing a great job and naturally collaborate. You do not want this to come to an end, and it is the same with ITER as well. We really have to be involved. We have some of the tech that can make it work. We still hold the world record on nuclear fusion in Oxfordshire. Anyhow I'm convinced they will all come around to my view. It's just this area needs a bit of working on. We expect to be invited.

[Churchill]

It means once again we make all our own laws, our Courts deal with our issues , we make our trade deals with any nation that wants to with us, we set any tariffs of goods coming in, we control our borders, we control UK waters, that is not isolation its common sense

[Ciaphas]

Of course, because we hope we wont be breaking away from them but will continue to do business and be friends with one another and cooperate. It's not as if Blighty has physically broken off from mainland Europe and is floating in the Atlantic towards Trump land. We should also look to cooperate with major science projects, because we both gain out of it. We'll hopefully end up as a free trader. The very last thing we want is a trade war with the EU. Uncle Sam is already provoking one global trade war, so we need another like a hole in the head.

A close relationship with the EU means regulatory alignment without representation, and if the UK wants access to EU science that not only means paying for that access but also following the EU's rules on scientific collaboration. The UK will be faced with 'take it or leave it' when dealing with the EU post-Brexit.



Mr Johnson's deal indicates they don't want a close relationship with the EU, presumably indicating he wants one with the US.



His avoiding Mr Trump during the NATO meeting was likely just to avoid any election issues that would have arisen if he'd been all pally with Mr Trump.

[Ciaphas]

A clean break means we take back control of everything , it does not and never has meant isolation and not maintaining a good relationship with Europe that has been made quite clear for over 3 years, it is beneficial to us and Europe

Except the UK can't take back control of everything unless it adopts an isolationist position since the moment it reaches out to the EU, US or any other power it will have to cede some control to secure a deal.



You have also ignored that if we leave with no deal the EU will still expect the issues that have been left unresolved to be addressed before they'll agree anything else, and the EU will be in a considerably stronger position than the UK.



Furthermore there are going to be conflicts between US and EU demands if we try and negotiate deals with both. The fact that the US and EU couldn't agree a trade deal made this abundently clear.

[Churchill]

A clean break means we take back control of everything , it does not and never has meant isolation and not maintaining a good relationship with Europe that has been made quite clear for over 3 years, it is beneficial to us and Europe

[Baron von Lotsov]

There is no such thing as a clean break. It's just burying your head in the sand and hoping all the unresolved issues go away.

Of course, because we hope we wont be breaking away from them but will continue to do business and be friends with one another and cooperate. It's not as if Blighty has physically broken off from mainland Europe and is floating in the Atlantic towards Trump land. We should also look to cooperate with major science projects, because we both gain out of it. We'll hopefully end up as a free trader. The very last thing we want is a trade war with the EU. Uncle Sam is already provoking one global trade war, so we need another like a hole in the head.

[Ciaphas]

I don't know about others but yes I do, it is not the deal I would have liked a clean break is what I expected but thanks to all the nonsense since 2016 its the best I can hope for at this stage,

There is no such thing as a clean break. It's just burying your head in the sand and hoping all the unresolved issues go away.