On Sun, 17 Jul 2016 10:39:37 +0100, Optimist
wrote:

On 17 Jul 2016 09:11:23 GMT, Jeremy Double wrote:

Optimist wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jul 2016 08:27:24 -0000 (UTC), Recliner wrote:

Optimist wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jul 2016 00:07:48 -0000 (UTC), Recliner wrote:

Optimist wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jul 2016 08:20:54 +0100, Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 15:49:33 on
Fri, 15 Jul 2016, Optimist remarked:
Then the shortfall should be paid by the UK treasury, and deducted from
the amount paid to Brussels.

It's not so simple. Countries are not rewarded with research participation
based on their EU contributions. They are included because their
universities are appropriate participants. We have the best EU universities
and so were included disproportionately; now, knowing we will soon be gone,
our universities are not considered for inclusion in new EU-funded
projects, as their work may not be funded after 2018.

Same answer - fund our OWN universities from the amount we pay in EU contributions.

But the whole £350m(sic) has already been promised to the NHS, or was it
Cornwall, or perhaps Wales.

Our universities are world-class, so it would be foolish of the EU not to
co-operate with us as they
do with other non-EU countries. If they decide not to, well, we can
co-operate with other countries
instead, their loss not ours.

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/jul/16/research-funding-hit-by-brexit-vote

The fact is the hundreds of millions of pounds supposedly from the EU are
provided by UK taxpayers
in the first place.

This is one of the areas where we got back more than we put in. So Brexit
means we'll have to pay more for a lower quality of cooperation in future.


So, if they axe a grant, UK can pay it directly instead and deduct the amount
from what is given to Brussels.

Typical Brexiter lie.

UK's total receipts from EU is £10billion a year less than our
contributions. No amount of lying by
Euro-fanatics can change that fact.


£8.5 billion actually.


According to ONS, the figure was £9.872 billion for 2014 and £11.271 billion for 2013.


But this money is not necessarily available for the
government to use after Brexit. Some areas of the civil service will need
to be expanded to cover activities where we currently share the resources
of the EU (the UK currently has NO trade negotiators, for instance, because
currently all UK trade deals are done on an EU-wide basis). It is highly
likely that UK GDP will drop as a result of Brexit, thus there will be less
tax receipts available to make payments from.

I do not accept that view, trade deals with the rest of the world

The RotW that already has established trade deals with others which
are going to be dropped to trade with part of an insignificant island
group off the coast of Europe ?

should benefit the economy by
boosting exports and reducing the price of imports. This has been pointed out by economists such as
Minford.


Also, the UK's credit rating
has already dropped as a result of the vote, and this is likely to make it
more expensive for the government to borrow, reducing further the amount of
money that the government could reallocate from EU contributions.

But that is because of the Bank of England has been printing money and cutting interest rates.


Focusing on research and development, I am aware of some research areas
where UK government (DTI) funding dried up in 2004, and it was only EU
funding that allowed this research and development to continue. Having a
second source of public funding is extremely useful to companies and
universities (because public funders don't pick the right areas to fund all
the time). Also, EU collaborative R&D funding provides access to areas of
expertise that are not available in UK companies or universities. There
are fields of science and engineering where UK universities are not at the
forefront of knowledge, and being able to access expertise available in
other EU countries is extremely important for the UK's future.

But we already collaborate more with the USA than we do with the EU.

Ah, yes. Polaris, Trident, illegal wars, and "Jump!-How High?".

In any case, surely the future is worldwide co-operation, rather than just 28 countries with 7% of
the world's population?

So 4 countries (maybe soon to be 3) with 1% has more clout ?