News What will the UK election results mean for the EU and Scottish independence?

[lisab]

British voters get to decide on Thursday who they want to rule the world's fifth-largest economy in a tight election that could yield weak government, propel the United Kingdom towards a vote on EU membership and stoke Scottish desire for secession.

Anyone have an opinion of how this is going to go down?

Regardless of how the election goes, personally I'd be shocked if the UK left the EU. But if it happens, it wouldn't be the first time I have been caught off guard, wrt world affairs!

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/05/06/us-britain-election-voting-idUSKBN0NR2LU20150506

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Wow, to me if feels like the last election was only months ago.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I just cast my vote. In terms of how it's going down there's a broad consensus amongst commentators that this will be another election without a majority. However it's very unlikely to be the same coalition, the lib dems lost a lot of the popularity they had last election by getting into bed with the conservatives. Another huge difference is that the SNP is set to become the third largest party by picking up nearly every Scottish seat. UKIP is the party mostly campaigning for an EU exit and whilst they're popular somewhat in the polls (around 15% of the vote) they're unlikely to get many seats thanks to first past the post voting. Same for the greens. In Wales Plaid Cymru are set to do well I think and I've got no idea about the Northern Ireland parties.

Tomorrow will be very interesting indeed. There's bound to be a few days scrabbling as party leaders try to form coalitions to gain a majority. Interestingly both main parties have ruled out a coalition with the SNP, IMO because they both campaigned so hard against Scottish independence that they can't u-turn now and buddy up with the party still gunning for more Scottish power.

We may have a situation in which the major parties can't form a coalition in which case one of them will try and lead with a minority party. There's been a lot of talk around "confidence and supply" recently which would mean a minority party would form a loose (I.e non official) alliance with one or more smaller parties. In return for the ruling party supporting some minority policies the minority parties promise not to contribute to a vote of no confidence. A no confidence vote is a possibility if we end up with a minority ruling party, traditionally they've not lasted long and if that's the case again there will be another election very soon.

One final personal observation but there's been a strong undercurrent for vote reform support over the last decade in the UK. There was a referendum a few years ago that decided to keep FPTP but arguably it was hamstrung by not offering an alternative anyone wants. We may see another serious push to scrap FPTP in favour of STV.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Early picks are conservatives won
http://blogs.wsj.com/dispatch/2015/05/07/u-k-election-results-live/

 

[Ryan_m_b]

The reaction here to that seems to be utter shock (basing this on social media and a flick through the news). The exit polls haven't been this different to the opinion polls in over twenty years.

Also quick clarification Greg, the exit polls show the Tories as having the largest party but not a majority. Even if it is 100% correct they'd still have to form a coalition (which could be very difficult given the fact the two other largest parties are strongly against them) and if they can't survive a likely no confidence vote.

 

[George Jones]

I am hoping that the exit polls are as wrong as they were in 1992.

 

[Vanadium 50]

The Torygraph...err...Telegraph is predicting 316 for the Conservatives, and 10 for the Liberal Democrats. (Who seem to be having a very rough night) That gives them 326, and they need 323, right?

 

[StevieTNZ]

I wonder if John Bercow will be re-elected Speaker?

(I am sad that Dawn Primarolo isn't running for Bristol South, as she made a good Deputy Speaker.)

 

[HossamCFD]

The Torygraph...err...Telegraph is predicting 316 for the Conservatives, and 10 for the Liberal Democrats. (Who seem to be having a very rough night) That gives them 326, and they need 323, right?

They need a minimum of 326 (out of a total of 650 seats). I'm not sure if another Tory/Lib Dem coalition is guaranteed though.

The exit polls look surprisingly accurate. The SNP was forecast to win 58 out of Scotland's 59 seats. So far the SNP has won 50 out of the counted 52 seats.

 

[StevieTNZ]

The exit polls look surprisingly accurate. The SNP was forecast to win 58 out of Scotland's 59 seats. So far the SNP has won 50 out of the counted 52 seats.

CNN is reporting SNP has 52 seats. Labour, 162. Conservatives 149.

 

[HossamCFD]

CNN is reporting SNP has 52 seats. Labour, 162. Conservatives 149.

Scotland is nearly there, only 2 constituencies remaining. The SNP has 54 seats so far, costing labour 40 seats in Scotland!

here's the BBC live coverage if anyone's interested:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015/results

Labour is actually not doing too bad in England, but their heavy loss in Scotland is proving disastrous.

 

[HossamCFD]

With only 90 constituencies to go, it looks like the tories might just about get a majority.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Well this has shocked a lot of people. The Tories might actually get a majority government, albeit a slim one.

 

[Vanadium 50]

They need a minimum of 326 (out of a total of 650 seats)

Sinn Fein will take their seats? That's even more remarkable!

It's moot, since the Conservatives have 325 now, with a forecast of 331. (According to the BBC)

 

[Ryan_m_b]

The Tories just passed 326 with 7 to go. Clegg, Milliband and Farage have all stepped down. The nature of politics in the near future is going to be very different.

 

[HossamCFD]

I feel there is something to be said about the fact that UKIP came third in the popular vote at 12.6% of the vote share, and yet they only got 1 seat. On the other hand, the Lib Dems came fourth at 7.8% but they secured 8 seats. I know that the FPTP system is unlikely to change anytime soon but this is getting slightly ridiculous.

personally I'd be shocked if the UK left the EU.

Now that the tories got the majority, the EU referendum should take place in 2017.

 

[Astronuc]

Apparently, not even close. Cameron sweeps to unexpected triumph in British election
http://news.yahoo.com/uks-cameron-poised-return-power-labour-routed-scotland-014734115--business.html

With just one seat left to declare in the 650-seat house, the Conservatives held 330 and Labour 232. The center-left Liberal Democrats, who supported Cameron in government since 2010, were all but wiped out, reduced to eight seats from 57.
. . . .
. . . . The anti-EU, populist UK Independence Party (UKIP) surged into third place in the overall vote tally, but disappointed its followers by managing to place first in only one district to win just a single seat. Like Labour's Miliband, Lib-Dem leader Nick Clegg and UKIP leader Nigel Farage resigned as party leaders.

In a body blow to Labour that set the pattern for the night, Douglas Alexander, the party's campaign chief and foreign policy spokesman, lost his seat to a 20-year-old Scottish nationalist student, the youngest member of the House of Commons since 1667.

Labour also faced traumatic losses in England. Ed Balls, in line to be finance minister if Labour had won, lost his seat. He fought back tears as he expressed sorrow at Labour's defeat.

In Scottish nationalist landslide, 20-year-old student takes seat from Labour
http://news.yahoo.com/scottish-nationalist-landslide-20-old-student-takes-seat-040004140.html

http://www.bbc.com/news/live/election-2015-england-32605050
http://www.bbc.com/news/election/2015/results
Looks like conservatives got 331.

Interesting outcome.Hmmm. Monster Raving Loony Party got 3,898 votes, but not enough to get a seat.

 

[SteamKing]

In Scottish nationalist landslide, 20-year-old student takes seat from Labour
http://news.yahoo.com/scottish-nationalist-landslide-20-old-student-takes-seat-040004140.html

Not only will this student be the youngest MP since 1677, she also beat Labour's election campaign chief, who previously held this seat.

Ouuchh! and Acchh! as the Scots say.

Like the Terminator, he'll be back!​

 

[Vanadium 50]

I feel there is something to be said about the fact that UKIP came third in the popular vote at 12.6% of the vote share, and yet they only got 1 seat. On the other hand, the Lib Dems came fourth at 7.8% but they secured 8 seats.

Ironic, that the LDs benefitted from the very policy they opposed.

 

[PeroK]

Ironic, that the LDs benefitted from the very policy they opposed.

The 8 seats are not worth much. Under PR, 7.8% of the vote would get about 50 seats. The real winners are Conservative and Labour. The Con's 37% got them 331 seats and Labour's 30% got them 232.

The big losers are UKIP, of course, but the system does the Lib Dems no favours. UKIP's nearly 4 million votes (over 12%) for 1 seat must be a record.

 

[f95toli]

I just asked one of our managers if there were any contingency plans now that we know for sure that there will be an in-out referendum for the UK's membership of the EU in 2017.
We -like most research institutes and universities in the UK- get much of our funding from the EU (e.g. FP7 and now H2020), this is also the main mechanism we use to set up formal collaborations with partners in the rest of Europe.
Even the mere fact that there will be a referendum is therefore going to have a huge effect on science in the UK. Starting from today the uncertainty about what would happen if the UK was to leave will make it more difficult to set up collaborations and apply for funding.

I don't even want to think about what would happen if the people in the UK actually voted to leave in 2017. It would be a complete disaster for science in the UK.

 

[mheslep]

UKIP's nearly 4 million votes (over 12%) for 1 seat must be a record.

And an instability: seats out of sync w/ popular votes can't last long.

 

[mheslep]

...It would be a complete disaster for science in the UK.

Is it the case that the UK share of EU science funding is out of proportion? Otherwise, how is leaving the EU a disaster in that regard, as UK contributions to the EU would thereafter stay at home.

 

[Czcibor]

And an instability: seats out of sync w/ popular votes can't last long.

You underestimate the power of majority voting ;)

Yes, with such vote counting algorithm, not only number matters but also their location. As long as they are properly dispersed - that's not a problem.

 

[mheslep]

Yes, with such vote counting algorithm, not only number matters but also their location. As long as they are properly dispersed - that's not a problem.

It can happen, clearly, through dispersal, conflicting tactics, or other manipulations but like a wobbly balance on the head of a pin it is very unlikely to stay that way, not 4 million votes restrained to one seat. Either the voters discount their current common cause as a fad or the seat count grows.

 

[lavoisier]

I thought a bit about the 'majority voting' thing.
A British guy explained me how it works, and it seemed to me that in theory it may sometimes give very different results compared to simple proportionality.
Example: suppose there are 50 constituencies, each with 100 voters. 50 people in each constituency vote for party A, and 50 for another party.
Now, move one A-voter from the first constituency to each of the other 49.
Party A will win in 49 constituencies, giving it 49/50 = 98% of seats, although it still actually has only 50% of people's votes.

OK - this is an extreme case that is probably very unlikely to happen in reality, but is there a mathematical theory of how biased this system can be compared to proportionality?
And does anybody know what the justification was for choosing this system as opposed to a purely proportional one?

 

[SteamKing]

I thought a bit about the 'majority voting' thing.
A British guy explained me how it works, and it seemed to me that in theory it may sometimes give very different results compared to simple proportionality.
Example: suppose there are 50 constituencies, each with 100 voters. 50 people in each constituency vote for party A, and 50 for another party.
Now, move one A-voter from the first constituency to each of the other 49.
Party A will win in 49 constituencies, giving it 49/50 = 98% of seats, although it still actually has only 50% of people's votes.

OK - this is an extreme case that is probably very unlikely to happen in reality, but is there a mathematical theory of how biased this system can be compared to proportionality?
And does anybody know what the justification was for choosing this system as opposed to a purely proportional one?

I doubt there is a mathematical theory underlying most voting systems in the world, as these systems are designed by politicians rather than mathematicians.

In the case of the First Past the Post system, as used in the Parliamentary elections in the UK, I believe this method was chosen to promote the formation of a national two-party system for parliamentary campaigns, rather than having a system, as in some countries, where a large number of smaller parties vie for a majority of seats in the parliament.

I believe that politicians think that a government chosen in this manner will have a clear working majority of votes in the ensuing parliament, and the government will not have to rely on the formation of a coalition in order to secure enough votes to do its business. Coalitions can fall apart quickly, often in times of great national moment, when a more stable government is to be desired.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plurality_voting_system

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_the_United_Kingdom

There are several different voting systems in use in the various democracies around the world, and each has its attractions and drawbacks. The UK has reformed its electoral system a number of times over the last couple of centuries, and there may be further changes ahead. Such is the whim of politics.

One can contrast the number of governments formed in the UK since 1945 versus the number of governments formed in, say, Italy, which has a large number of smaller parties:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Italy

Post 1945 UK governments

Post 1945 Italian governments​

 

[cristo]

This really came out of left field - most people were expecting another hung parliament and, at worst, 5 more years of a con-lib coalition. But now without the lib dems to rein in right of the Tory party, we're in for 5 years of cuts to all public services, including the nhs. Cameron's gamble of an in/out EU referendum is also very scary. I can really see the public voting us out.

In all, a very sad day for the majority of Britons.

 

[SteamKing]

It's almost like you'd expect to see the headline: "Tories Win; Continent Cut Off".

 

[PeroK]

This really came out of left field

It came out of right field, surely?

 

[lavoisier]

Seen from outside, to be frank my general impression is that the UK is increasingly drifting West and gradually becoming like a US state. Privatisations, spending cuts and all that.
I don't know if any European country could function under a US-like rule, given Europe's history and its people's mentality.
But then again, all facts and figures seem to suggest that most Brits actually don't feel (culturally, socially, economically, financially, psychologically, geographically, politically, you name it) like they are part of Europe, so fair enough, if that's really what they want, they'll have it. Maybe it will work for them. Good luck.

 

[PeroK]

Seen from outside, to be frank my general impression is that the UK is increasingly drifting West and gradually becoming like a US state. Privatisations, spending cuts and all that.
I don't know if any European country could function under a US-like rule, given Europe's history and its people's mentality.
But then again, all facts and figures seem to suggest that most Brits actually don't feel (culturally, socially, economically, financially, psychologically, geographically, politically, you name it) like they are part of Europe, so fair enough, if that's really what they want, they'll have it. Maybe it will work for them. Good luck.

I'll be very surprised if the UK votes to leave the EU. And even more surprised if we apply to become the 51st State!

 

[cristo]

Seen from outside, to be frank my general impression is that the UK is increasingly drifting West and gradually becoming like a US state. Privatisations, spending cuts and all that.
I don't know if any European country could function under a US-like rule, given Europe's history and its people's mentality.
But then again, all facts and figures seem to suggest that most Brits actually don't feel (culturally, socially, economically, financially, psychologically, geographically, politically, you name it) like they are part of Europe, so fair enough, if that's really what they want, they'll have it. Maybe it will work for them. Good luck.

Absolutely the United kingdom will never be "like a US state". The privatization has been going on for years, primarily under the previous Tory governments.

Leaving the EU will not work as the uk (well, what's left of it, as Scotland are bound to leave the union) will just be isolated. I just hope Cameron is smart enough to ensure the referendum will get a no vote. I suspect in the next few years we will really start to miss nick clegg and the lib dems and their veto over dreadful Tory policies.

 

[SteamKing]

Everyone seems to be crying in their beers over the possibility that the UK might leave the EU.

What happens if Europe leaves the EU behind? Will Greece and Germany be able to make up, I mean, without mentioning the War?

Is the euro the currency of the future, or just another Continental dead end?

What has Europe ever done for the UK? I mean, besides Napoleon and the World Wars.

Why would it be such a catastrophe for the UK not to be bound by whatever the circus in Brussels does?

Can a nation in the 21st Century survive if there are no bureaucrats somewhere telling it what the proper shape of its bananas should be?

Could it be that the EU needs the UK now more than vice versa?

 

[Vanadium 50]

including the nhs. Cameron's gamble of an in/out EU referendum is also very scary. I can really see the public voting us out.

Isn't this a statement that you don't support a (presumed future) democratic decision? A decision made possible by an election? The Euroskeptic movement is apparently gaining support in Britain. That this will impact future government actions is democracy, no?

I just hope Cameron is smart enough to ensure the referendum will get a no vote.

In most countries the government doesn't control the outcome of referenda.

What has Europe ever done for the UK?

I think that's not a stupid question. I think an entirely reasonable question is "What are the costs and benefits to the UK remaining in the EFTA but not the EU?" Most of the pro-EU arguments I have read are on economic grounds - grounds where the EFTA would provide most of the same benefits. This is especially true since the UK has opted out of major EU programs: Schengen and the Euro come to mind.

 

[cristo]

Isn't this a statement that you don't support a (presumed future) democratic decision? A decision made possible by an election? The Euroskeptic movement is apparently gaining support in Britain. That this will impact future government actions is democracy, no?

Sure, but I just don't think the public should be given the chance to change things in such a dramatic way. The number of people that will/are sold by the "Eastern Europeans coming here stealing our jobs" nonsense is the scary part.

In most countries the government doesn't control the outcome of referenda.

Well, to be fair, they do get to decide when the referendum will take place, and someone has to decide who can vote (EU citizens resident in the UK, presumably). That's what I meant.

I think that's not a stupid question. I think an entirely reasonable question is "What are the costs and benefits to the UK remaining in the EFTA but not the EU?" Most of the pro-EU arguments I have read are on economic grounds - grounds where the EFTA would provide most of the same benefits. This is especially true since the UK has opted out of major EU programs: Schengen and the Euro come to mind.

That's a reasonable question, but will anyone be able to provide a straight answer?

 

[lavoisier]

@SteamKing - BTW thanks for your thorough answer to my question about the electoral system.
And sorry for my comment on the UK's politics. I didn't mean to question or criticize the choice Britain made, I just think it's going to be very tough on society to move even further toward a certain model that is not so 'tried-and-tested' this side of the Atlantic. But perhaps in the long run it will turn out to be the right choice for the UK. We'll see.
As for the EU and the euro... well, not very popular with many people on 'the Continent' either at the moment, I can tell you. Yes, the arrogant, hideous face of an incredibly expensive yet inefficient and often business-averse, privileged EU bureaucracy is something many EU citizens, heavily struck by crisis after crisis and crushing austerity measures that regularly took away mainly from the wrong people, really can't stomach any longer. So yes, it's possible that the whole thing will fail. Trouble is that if that happens in an abrupt and inconsiderate way, on the wave of a populist movement, once again only the interests of 'some' will be safeguarded (because they will see that coming and will make sure they get away with it not only unscathed, but better off still!), whereas a multitude of people will again be unjustly punished, made even poorer and deprived of rights and hope for the future. A more reasoned, gradual process that increases the efficiency while decreasing the expense of the EU machinery, and re-establishes some *internationally* valid principles of social justice in business and finance to protect the most defenseless against the solely profit-driven excesses of such systems, is preferable in my opinion. More difficult to achieve, perhaps, but probably socially fairer.
I may be wrong, but I don't think we should play Monopoly with the lives of hundreds of millions of people, that's all.

 

[mheslep]

Article 50: "Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements."

Given this was the rule under which the people democratically decided to join the Union, what is overly dramatic about the people democratically deciding to leave. Is there to be a new rule for the democratic process, that suffrage is to be denied when some decide the electorate is improperly biased? Who's to be the some? Return of the nobility?

 

[Vanadium 50]

but is there a mathematical theory of how biased this system can be compared to proportionality?

Whole books have been written about this. There is also a theorem by Kenneth Arrow that says that with more than two candidates, there is no voting system that provides a universal, well-behaved way to aggregate individual preferences to community preferences - i.e. there is no perfect voting system. It can also be proven that there are no voting systems with more than two candidates where tactical voting (voting for a less preferred candidate to produce a more preferred outcome) is never effective.

 

[Czcibor]

OK - this is an extreme case that is probably very unlikely to happen in reality, but is there a mathematical theory of how biased this system can be compared to proportionality?
And does anybody know what the justification was for choosing this system as opposed to a purely proportional one?

I'm not 100% certain about it, but I think that's a legacy issue.

In the past there were attempts to use other extreme - almost perfectly proportional system. Let's say that also was problematic - too many small parties. Result was lack of stable rule, which in case of 2nd Polish Republic lead to military coup d'etat, and semi dictatorship was considered as reasonable solution.

In consequence to provide for stable rule there are mechanism for tweaking a bit result. For example in Poland, for parliament:
- only parties with at least 5% of votes get seats
-theoretically system is claimed being proportional, but using D'Hondt method makes it a bit biased against small parties (example in 2011 SLD got 8,2% votes and 5,8% of seats)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D'Hondt_method

 

[Czcibor]

Everyone seems to be crying in their beers over the possibility that the UK might leave the EU.

What happens if Europe leaves the EU behind? Will Greece and Germany be able to make up, I mean, without mentioning the War?

Is the euro the currency of the future, or just another Continental dead end?

What has Europe ever done for the UK? I mean, besides Napoleon and the World Wars.

Why would it be such a catastrophe for the UK not to be bound by whatever the circus in Brussels does?

Can a nation in the 21st Century survive if there are no bureaucrats somewhere telling it what the proper shape of its bananas should be?

Could it be that the EU needs the UK now more than vice versa?

Honestly speaking I doubt that EU does not UK any more, then UK needs Scotland. But if a referendum goes, then it could be changed.

So your point is that UK should be cut off from the common market? (that would be blow for the business) Or maybe UK should adopt EU regulation, but as an EEA country (like Norway or Switzerland)?

How do you think, Scotland is quite strongly pro EU... Maybe England, Welsh and North Ireland should leave EU, while leaving Scotland in the EU? :D

 

[SteamKing]

Honestly speaking I doubt that EU does not UK any more, then UK needs Scotland. But if a referendum goes, then it could be changed.

The statement above is unclear. There is a missing verb in the clause, "I doubt that EU does not ... UK any more"

So your point is that UK should be cut off from the common market? (that would be blow for the business) Or maybe UK should adopt EU regulation, but as an EEA country (like Norway or Switzerland)?

I didn't say anything like that. And if the UK decides to pull out of the EU, why would that prevent the UK from trading with the EU? The UK and the Common Market co-existed before the EU was founded. I don't see why trade with the Common Market should be interrupted should the UK vote to leave the EU.

How do you think, Scotland is quite strongly pro EU... Maybe England, Welsh and North Ireland should leave EU, while leaving Scotland in the EU? :D

As long as the UK remains 'united', even if in name only, international policy should be decided by the national government. I fail to see why the rest of the UK should defer to Scotland on this point or any other, for that matter.

There was a referendum in Scotland about whether they should become independent of the rest of the UK. It failed. Obviously, a majority of Scots decided not to go it alone and remain with the UK, which implies that although many Scots may not agree with the policies established by Westminster, enough of them don't feel that this is sufficient cause to break up the UK.

 

[Czcibor]

The statement above is unclear. There is a missing verb in the clause, "I doubt that EU does not ... UK any more"

verb - "need"; sorry

I didn't say anything like that. And if the UK decides to pull out of the EU, why would that prevent the UK from trading with the EU? The UK and the Common Market co-existed before the EU was founded. I don't see why trade with the Common Market should be interrupted should the UK vote to leave the EU.

You didn't say that directly. UK is not in the EU for ex. some great spiritual gains but mostly for common market. The default idea is, that if you leave EU by default quite many privileges are no longer applicable. For example there would be a tariff border between the UK and the UE. Or a located in any EU country branch of a British company paying dividend/interests/royalty fees to its mother company would be subject to a withholding tax (UK would not be subject to EU Parent Subsidiary Directive, right? :D ). Or British food exporters would have to make extra paper work to show that their food pass EU standards.

Because European Communities don't exist any more? And the successor organization is the EU?

So maybe the UK should apply afterwards to join the European Economic Area, and have most of free trade advantages without being formally within the EU? But then your argument concerning bananas (semi-mythical being from Banana War) is no longer valid, as an EEA country they would have to follow EU regulations anyway.

As long as the UK remains 'united', even if in name only, international policy should be decided by the national government. I fail to see why the rest of the UK should defer to Scotland on this point or any other, for that matter.

There was a referendum in Scotland about whether they should become independent of the rest of the UK. It failed. Obviously, a majority of Scots decided not to go it alone and remain with the UK, which implies that although many Scots may not agree with the policies established by Westminster, enough of them don't feel that this is sufficient cause to break up the UK.

Honestly speaking I fail to see sufficient cause to break up either the UK or the EU. But that's a beauty of such referendum when nationalistic pride can beat rational calculation.

Why? Because for Scots one of arguments for staying in the UK, was risk of having to re-apply for joining in the EU and this argument would no longer be valid.

 

[epenguin]

I just asked one of our managers if there were any contingency plans now that we know for sure that there will be an in-out referendum for the UK's membership of the EU in 2017.
We -like most research institutes and universities in the UK- get much of our funding from the EU (e.g. FP7 and now H2020), this is also the main mechanism we use to set up formal collaborations with partners in the rest of Europe.
Even the mere fact that there will be a referendum is therefore going to have a huge effect on science in the UK. Starting from today the uncertainty about what would happen if the UK was to leave will make it more difficult to set up collaborations and apply for funding.

I don't even want to think about what would happen if the people in the UK actually voted to leave in 2017. It would be a complete disaster for science in the UK.

Don't worry, I am sure this is one of the many things where an exit will make no detectable difference from the point of view of the scientist. The UK will continue to take full part in the FW Programmes, as do the non-EU members, Switzerland, Norway and Israel (and as did many countries during pre-accession periods).

More broadly this is just one of the ways in which an exit will be all appearance. The UK will still have to conform to to the thousands of laws and regulations, participate in Programmes like Science and Environment etc. and pay in, all the things the UK public has been told it is discontented with, just with more complicated arrangements and reduced influence.

At this moment the official idea is Cameron will renegotiate the terms of British EU membership, and then seek approval of the terms in a referendum. Nobody knows just what he will renegotiate and I tell you he doesn't either. They will be minor things which he will have to trumpet as major concessions, nothing needing all this hoo-ha. He is IMO more likely to win than not, but only just, a serious worry. It is all too typical of the lack of any positive leadership of the public concerning the EU from the political class which is nearly all committed to membership - rather than positive lead forwards they put on an act of being dragged backwards into it. What politician is going to take the risk of trying to educate the public, or incur the enmity of the press barons?

One potential disaster would be if it comes out that an exit option wins in England and loses in Scotland, which would furnish a new pretext for separation.

 

[SteamKing]

The default idea is, that if you leave EU by default quite many privileges are no longer applicable. For example ... :D ). Or British food exporters would have to make extra paper work to show that their food pass EU standards.

It's not clear that the amount of any paperwork is reduced by joining the EU. If anything, it only seems to increase, since shuffling paperwork is the lifeblood of any bureaucracy.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Janet Daley has an interesting opinion piece in the Telegraph (for non-UK readers, the Telegraph leans right) - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/gen...he-British-people-was-entirely-justified.html

One excerpt:

But the question that demands an answer is: why did so many voters feel compelled to avoid telling Mr Kellner and his friends their real intentions? Because that is certainly what happened. I am as sure of this as I was of the eventual election result: the four in 10 poll respondents who said they had not yet made up their minds who to vote for (a figure that remained remarkably consistent right to the end) did not, as one Labour spokesman claimed, suddenly decide “when they had the pencils in their hands” that they were going to support the Tories. Most of them knew all along that they were going to do that – but they were not willing to say so.

Somehow we have arrived at a point where the conscientiously held beliefs and values of the majority of the population have become a matter for secret shame. The desire to do as well as you can in life, to develop your potential and expect to be rewarded for it, to provide your family with the greatest possible opportunity for self-improvement and to do that on your own without being dependent on the state – these are the assumptions that seem to have become so unacceptable that identifying with them is beyond the pale, or at least so socially outrageous that it is not worth the ignominy of admitting to them.

This is very similar to the US in 1972, where Richard Nixon swept 49 states, prompting the comment, "How could this happen? Nobody I know voted for Nixon!"

 

[Czcibor]

Janet Daley has an interesting opinion piece in the Telegraph (for non-UK readers, the Telegraph leans right) - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/gen...he-British-people-was-entirely-justified.html
One excerpt:
This is very similar to the US in 1972, where Richard Nixon swept 49 states, prompting the comment, "How could this happen? Nobody I know voted for Nixon!"

Same as in Poland, except:
-there are plenty of changing parties in power, but anyway the anti-establishment ones are
under-represented in opinion polls (or people who don't vote tend to claim when questioned supporting something moderate)
-the Agricultural Party is always underrepresented, but it seems that no-one bothers to ask its constituents (the explanation of anti-establisment fails at them, so it seems that some samples are a bit biased against people from tiny villages)Anyway, in Poland we just had the first round of presidential election and the winner so far according to exit polls is a right wing populist, so I'm not delighted.