Brexit and the Consequences

[Atilla]

Unelected bureaucrat! - The technical British coined phrase is 'Quango'.

The term "quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisation" was created in 1967 by the Carnegie Foundation's Alan Pifer in an essay on independence and accountability in public-funded bodies incorporated in the private sector. This term was shortened to "quango" by Anthony Barker, a British participant during a follow-up conference on the subject.[2]

It describes an ostensibly non-governmental organisation performing governmental functions, often in receipt of funding or other support from government,[3] while mainstream NGOs mostly get their donations or funds from the public and other organisations that support their cause. Numerous quangos were created from the 1980s onwards. Examples in the United Kingdom include those engaged in the regulation of various commercial and service sectors, such as the Water Services Regulation Authority.

An essential feature of a quango in the original definition was that it should not be a formal part of the state structure. The term was then extended to apply to a range of organisations, such as executive agencies providing (from 1988) health, education and other services. Particularly in the UK, this occurred in a polemical atmosphere in which it was alleged that proliferation of such bodies was undesirable and should be reversed (see below).[4] This spawned the related acronym qualgo, a 'quasi-autonomous local government organisation'.[5]

The less contentious term non-departmental public body (NDPB) is often employed to identify numerous organisations with devolved governmental responsibilities. The UK government's definition in 1997 of a non-departmental public body or quango was:
A body which has a role in the processes of national government, but is not a government department or part of one, and which accordingly operates to a greater or lesser extent at arm's length from Ministers.[6]

No points for guessing who commissioned them most from the 80s onwards. Like mushrooms they were. Mostly yanks too, who some may say with vested interests pursuing the interests of the US of A.

To such an extent that two esteemed Tories (Howe and Heseltine) fell out with Mrs T over it. Mrs T who irrefutably gave the Quango's more say then her own cabinet ministers.

I'm delighted to say however, Mrs May seems nothing like Mrs Thatcher and I sprout expletives at the comparisons. Theresa May is a thorough bred politicians.

 

[timsk]

. . .I'm delighted to say however, Mrs May seems nothing like Mrs Thatcher and I sprout expletives at the comparisons. Theresa May is a thorough bred politicians.

Well, were it not for her psychopathic leanings, I'd be inclined to agree.

 

[Atilla]

Well, were it not for her psychopathic leanings, I'd be inclined to agree.

OMG - you are quite happy to see lil ol biddies freeze to the far side but not see anyone go up in flames?

I'm measuring very high readings on my conflict richter counter. :whistling


I'm a little mixed up here too, if I'm to be honest. UK's nuclear heads account for 1.5% of all global nuclear stock and considering the cost I doubt it will make any difference to anyone whether we are in or out.

 

[timsk]

OMG - you are quite happy to see lil ol biddies freeze to the far side but not see anyone go up in flames?

I'm measuring very high readings on my conflict richter counter.

Your 'conflict richter counter' needs recalibrating Atilla. Actually, it's beyond repair, I suggest you bin it. Just for the record, I've never said I'm "happy to see lil ol biddies freeze to the far side" - that's just your totally misguided interpretation of the Brexit vote, lol!

I'm a little mixed up here too, if I'm to be honest. . .

Thank heavens, the truth at last - and something we can agree upon!

 

[Atilla]

Your 'conflict richter counter' needs recalibrating Atilla. Actually, it's beyond repair, I suggest you bin it. Just for the record, I've never said I'm "happy to see lil ol biddies freeze to the far side" - that's just your totally misguided interpretation of the Brexit vote, lol!


Thank heavens, the truth at last - and something we can agree upon!

This is where we can do a deal with uncle Sam. They have so many of these damn things they are looking for spots to locate them on. So I'd let part of our England and perhaps even go as far as transporting some on our submarines in exchange for some agreement that we'll have first use of them if and when required and pay them later for it. Sort of credit purchase upon use.

There are enough nuclear war heads to blow the World up 50 times over. So why produce more?

Spread them a little. Makes biz sense too.

Waddayatink?

 

[piphoe]

absolutely insane over here in US, i've never seen anything like it.

i can't cross the street w/o my head on a 360 swivel.

the world is in crises. we earthlings are experiencing growing pains man.

i hope you guys stay in the EU, for all its fleas only thru cooperation can we all prosper.

 

[piphoe]

Trump is most dangerous man on the planet right now.

And, i do everything I can to keep him out.

Good luck to you guys too.

Together, always.

 

[timsk]

. . .Waddayatink?

Well, in spite of the divisions among the great and the good on T2W about Brexit, there seems to be broad consensus on Richard's thread about Jeremy Corbin. It would be in Labour's best interests - and that of the country - if he stood aside. However, one thing he is absolutely right about IMO is his stance on nuclear weapons. The only faintly credible argument in their favour - and it is as weak as pi$$ in my view - is that it creates jobs. So, if I was PM, I'd make the country's scrap metal merchants deliriously happy and get rid of the lot.

With (some of) the money saved, I'd commission the likes of Anthony Gormley and Thomas Heatherwick to create amazing public structures and works of art to revitalise the urban environment up and down the land. That would be a very constructive (literally) use of the money and create a legacy of which we can all be proud and could be enjoyed by millions in years to come.
Tim.

 

[barjon]

Well, in spite of the divisions among the great and the good on T2W about Brexit, there seems to be broad consensus on Richard's thread about Jeremy Corbin. It would be in Labour's best interests - and that of the country - if he stood aside. However, one thing he is absolutely right about IMO is his stance on nuclear weapons. The only faintly credible argument in their favour - and it is as weak as pi$$ in my view - is that it creates jobs. So, if I was PM, I'd make the country's scrap metal merchants deliriously happy and get rid of the lot.

With (some of) the money saved, I'd commission the likes of Anthony Gormley and Thomas Heatherwick to create amazing public structures and works of art to revitalise the urban environment up and down the land. That would be a very constructive (literally) use of the money and create a legacy of which we can all be proud and could be enjoyed by millions in years to come.
Tim.

That's a good idea, Tim. In the event of any threat of war (wonder why we've been at peace - more or less - for so long ) we can threaten to throw a few pictures at any would be aggressor, that'll stop 'em dead in their tracks.

 

[Atilla]

Trump is most dangerous man on the planet right now.

And, i do everything I can to keep him out.

Good luck to you guys too.

Together, always.

Yes absolutely. Strength and honour are attributes of unity standing side by side working together. All good things come from unity not separation. This principal applies to countries as it does to individuals.

Whilst UK is talking of leaving EU, Trump is talking about leaving NATO.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...ot-guarantee-protection-for-nato-countries-a/

 

[timsk]

That's a good idea, Tim. In the event of any threat of war (wonder why we've been at peace - more or less - for so long ) we can threaten to throw a few pictures at any would be aggressor, that'll stop 'em dead in their tracks.

It's a whole heap better idea than Mrs May's suggestion of mass murder. The people who are most likely to attack us - Kim Jong II and his ilk - won't be put off by the threat that we've got a bigger stick than him. People are pretty much the same everywhere. I don't believe the Korean people bare us any ill feeling any more than we do them. It's just a handful of nutters with their finger on the trigger who are the problem. So, killing hundreds of thousands of Koreans (in this example) will achieve precisely nothing. Nothing positive that is. To me, it's a no brainer; scraping nuclear weapons and spending the money on the arts is an infinitely preferable idea.
Tim.

 

[barjon]

It's a whole heap better idea than Mrs May's suggestion of mass murder. The people who are most likely to attack us - Kim Jong II and his ilk - won't be put off by the threat that we've got a bigger stick than him. People are pretty much the same everywhere. I don't believe the Korean people bare us any ill feeling any more than we do them. It's just a handful of nutters with their finger on the trigger who are the problem. So, killing hundreds of thousands of Koreans (in this example) will achieve precisely nothing. Nothing positive that is. To me, it's a no brainer; scraping nuclear weapons and spending the money on the arts is an infinitely preferable idea.
Tim.

You don't subscribe to the idea that the threat of nuclear retaliation inhibits then? I think a long period of peace suckers us into the view that major war is a thing of the past. They said that after the great war to end all wars in 1918

 

[counter_violent]

Don't know about the EU falling apart, but the second biggest brick in the wall is on its way out. I doubt it will result in the dam breaking but it's certainly the biggest existential threat to the EU.

No it isn't.

The EU is the biggest threat to the EU, by failing to deal with it's many and varied problems.
The model is pretty much based on the United States, and we can see how well that works can't we !
The EU wants to go further along that road. Talk about blinkered stupidity !

Top of the list right now is I S and I can't see the European heads and institutions dealing with it. The knock on effect will be that the people take matters into their own hands, either in an organised political fashion or not.

History tells us that people of different cultures and values do not mix and yet the whole EU experiment is designed around movement and mixing. We only need to look across the pond to see that there's no us, but plenty of them and us.

I can understand nobody want's to talk about it. Much easier to bury our heads in the sand in the hope that it all goes away.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36892785
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36897694
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36892393

 

[timsk]

You don't subscribe to the idea that the threat of nuclear retaliation inhibits then?

Correct Jon, I don't. Simply because the people who need to be inhibited are the likes of Kim Jong II. And it's probably fair to say that we care a whole lot more about his people than he does. So killing hundres of thousands of Koreans just to get him is wrong on all fronts.

I think a long period of peace suckers us into the view that major war is a thing of the past. They said that after the great war to end all wars in 1918

I suppose that depends on how you define a 'major war'. That said, I take your point, I just don't believe the threat of a nuclear strike is the answer. Just to be clear on this, I'm not for one minute advocating getting rid of our armed forces. On the contrary, I'd throw some of the money saved (by not renewing Trident) on yet more sophisticated intelligence and 'Spooks' style technology. If some nutter is threatening us, the answer isn't to nuke him and his people, the answer is to invite him to tea at Claridges and to slip some plutonium into his cup of Earl Grey.
Tim.

 

[Atilla]

Put the thread back on track - UK Science is suffering already. Newsnight discussing funding now. Asking parliament to underwrite science funding previously provided by the EU.

http://www.nature.com/news/brexit-watch-uk-researchers-scramble-to-save-science-1.20307

If we don't brain drain will start soon enough.

So far not seeing any positives coming from the Brexit crowd. Just news showing how shafted we have been.

This is going to effect universities up and down the country.


I'm sure fisherman up North will be happier knowing clever cloggs got shafted like they did and will now know how they felt. Cut off your nose to spite your face. Good work.


http://www.nature.com/news/how-scientists-reacted-to-the-brexit-1.20158

http://www.nature.com/news/brexit-watch-uk-researchers-scramble-to-save-science-1.20307

Scientists usually look down on anecdotal evidence — but for the past month, alarmed UK researchers have been grabbing at every anecdote they can find.

The reason: an urgent need to emphasize to politicians that UK science is already being damaged by Brexit, the country’s decision to leave the European Union. Because of uncertainty about the future, research leaders say, UK institutions that rely on EU funding are already seeing their staff dropped or demoted from planned collaborative EU grant applications, and top talent could already be leaving Britain.

“It’s a bit soon to tell whether this is really significant. The stories we are getting are in the tens, not in the hundreds or thousands,” Philip Nelson, chief executive of the UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC), told a House of Lords inquiry into the effects of Brexit on science on 19 July. “The extent to which this is a kneejerk reaction to the referendum is really hard to tell.”


Tell Nature: Big or small, we want to hear how Brexit is affecting you
Individual anecdotes of Brexit’s concrete impacts are emerging. Tom Dowling, a British geologist who returned to the United Kingdom in March after gaining his PhD at Lund University in Sweden, told Nature that he has just scrapped his application for a European research grant. He and his supervisor at Cambridge University felt that potential post-Brexit bias against British scientists meant that it “wasn’t worth continuing”. Dowling adds that he is now considering leaving the country and taking European citizenship.

And Chris Husbands, vice-chancellor of Sheffield Hallam University, told a House of Commons inquiry that his institution’s academics had been asked to withdraw from three collaborative projects funded by the EU’s Horizon 2020 programme, “due to the perceived risk of having a UK partner on the project”. Other consortia have asked that the university no longer be a coordinator in collaborations, he said. The UK science minister Jo Johnson, has set up a specific e-mail address ([email protected]) to receive more such examples.

Still, five UK universities told Nature that they haven’t yet heard firm examples of negative fallout from Brexit. And spokespeople for two organizations that are collating dossiers for Johnson’s inbox — Universities UK, which represents British higher-education institutions, and the Institute of Physics — both told Nature on 20 July that despite concerns, they haven’t yet seen evidence that Brexit is having a widespread impact.


Science’s status shifts in new Brexit government
Research leaders say that waiting a few months for stronger evidence — such as quantitative proof of a drop in UK–EU collaborations, or an exodus of non-British EU academics (who make up 15% of UK university staff) — could be too late. “If we do not raise these real concerns now, by the time we have hard data, the damage may have already been done,” says a spokesperson for the Royal Society.

Guarantee wanted
Demands are growing for politicians to do something to reassure scientists. On 19 July, seven national academies, including the Royal Society, urged the government to make a “bold public commitment” that the United Kingdom wants to retain and build on its research base, “to assuage any loss of confidence in UK research”. They say it is “vital” that non-British EU academics be given assurances that they will be able to continue to live and work in the country, and that Britain reassures its EU partners of its commitment to current and future research.

The head of the Royal Society, Nobel laureate Venkatraman Ramakrishnan, has called for the government to underwrite grants given to British scientists in multinational EU projects, to prevent EU collaborators worrying about any future loss of funding. And some researchers hope that the government could guarantee to protect UK research from any financial losses from Brexit, by redirecting some of the money that would have been paid to the EU. When science minister Johnson was asked whether he could promise security for science funding at a 19 July debate on higher-education legislation, he avoided answering the question.


Brexit watch: Scientists grapple with the fallout
But it is politically very unlikely that government ministers can make solid assurances right now, says Sarah Main, director of the London-based Campaign for Science and Engineering. Because Brexit negotiations haven’t started — and because constraints on freedom of movement were a crucial factor in favour of the Brexit vote — no one can guarantee that the United Kingdom will be able to easily hire EU scientists, access EU research funding or play a full part in projects with EU partners in years to come.

Main says that, for now, she’d just like to hear from the new UK government that science is of core importance to its plans for economic growth. “We’ve moved from a political environment where that sort of thing was said quite regularly, to a point where we don’t really know,” she says.

Science on the agenda
Whatever happens, UK scientists want to make sure that their interests are heard when it comes to the Brexit negotiations with the EU. An online petition that calls for any Brexit deal to preserve UK access to EU collaborative research and development programmes has attracted more than 15,000 signatures in the ten days since it was launched. “We want to make sure that science doesn’t get forgotten,” says the petition’s co-founder David Robinson, a metrology specialist who runs Psi-tran, a research consultancy in Surrey, UK.

And more than 1,600 scientists — most of them early-career researchers at UK universities — wrote in a letter to The Times on 22 July that the government should protect scientists by acting to maintain access to EU funding and ensure the free movement of researchers. "If these are lost during EU renegotiations, we insist that the government puts equivalent UK-backed schemes in place," the authors say.


Nature special: Brexit and science
For now, it’s important for scientists to remember that the United Kingdom remains a full member of the EU, emphasizes Gill Wells, who heads a team dealing with queries about European funding at the University of Oxford. She says that there is some panicking. But she has sought and received assurances from the European Commission that there will be no bias against UK applicants for European Research Council grants. And she cautions against making too much noise about the impacts of Brexit on job recruitment. “The more awareness [there is] that people don’t come, the more people won’t come.”

But for non-British scientists pondering UK job applications, the uncertainty must be having an effect, says Philippe Froguel, a French geneticist at Imperial College London. “It is not a good time to go to the UK to do science,” he says. “Nobody in our field knows anything about the future, but everyone imagines the worst: fewer PhD students and academic recruits from Europe, and no access to EU funding, which means a loss of UK leadership in many fields of medical research. Many non-UK nationals like me are thinking of either taking a UK passport or leaving. A big mess indeed.”

 

[counter_violent]

Put the thread back on track - UK Science is suffering already. Newsnight discussing funding now. Asking parliament to underwrite science funding previously provided by the EU.

http://www.nature.com/news/brexit-watch-uk-researchers-scramble-to-save-science-1.20307

If we don't brain drain will start soon enough.

So far not seeing any positives coming from the Brexit crowd. Just news showing how shafted we have been.

This is going to effect universities up and down the country.


I'm sure fisherman up North will be happier knowing clever cloggs got shafted like they did and will now know how they felt. Cut off your nose to spite your face. Good work.


http://www.nature.com/news/how-scientists-reacted-to-the-brexit-1.20158

http://www.nature.com/news/brexit-watch-uk-researchers-scramble-to-save-science-1.20307

Scientists usually look down on anecdotal evidence — but for the past month, alarmed UK researchers have been grabbing at every anecdote they can find.

The reason: an urgent need to emphasize to politicians that UK science is already being damaged by Brexit, the country’s decision to leave the European Union. Because of uncertainty about the future, research leaders say, UK institutions that rely on EU funding are already seeing their staff dropped or demoted from planned collaborative EU grant applications, and top talent could already be leaving Britain.

“It’s a bit soon to tell whether this is really significant. The stories we are getting are in the tens, not in the hundreds or thousands,” Philip Nelson, chief executive of the UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC), told a House of Lords inquiry into the effects of Brexit on science on 19 July. “The extent to which this is a kneejerk reaction to the referendum is really hard to tell.”


Tell Nature: Big or small, we want to hear how Brexit is affecting you
Individual anecdotes of Brexit’s concrete impacts are emerging. Tom Dowling, a British geologist who returned to the United Kingdom in March after gaining his PhD at Lund University in Sweden, told Nature that he has just scrapped his application for a European research grant. He and his supervisor at Cambridge University felt that potential post-Brexit bias against British scientists meant that it “wasn’t worth continuing”. Dowling adds that he is now considering leaving the country and taking European citizenship.

And Chris Husbands, vice-chancellor of Sheffield Hallam University, told a House of Commons inquiry that his institution’s academics had been asked to withdraw from three collaborative projects funded by the EU’s Horizon 2020 programme, “due to the perceived risk of having a UK partner on the project”. Other consortia have asked that the university no longer be a coordinator in collaborations, he said. The UK science minister Jo Johnson, has set up a specific e-mail address ([email protected]) to receive more such examples.

Still, five UK universities told Nature that they haven’t yet heard firm examples of negative fallout from Brexit. And spokespeople for two organizations that are collating dossiers for Johnson’s inbox — Universities UK, which represents British higher-education institutions, and the Institute of Physics — both told Nature on 20 July that despite concerns, they haven’t yet seen evidence that Brexit is having a widespread impact.


Science’s status shifts in new Brexit government
Research leaders say that waiting a few months for stronger evidence — such as quantitative proof of a drop in UK–EU collaborations, or an exodus of non-British EU academics (who make up 15% of UK university staff) — could be too late. “If we do not raise these real concerns now, by the time we have hard data, the damage may have already been done,” says a spokesperson for the Royal Society.

Guarantee wanted
Demands are growing for politicians to do something to reassure scientists. On 19 July, seven national academies, including the Royal Society, urged the government to make a “bold public commitment” that the United Kingdom wants to retain and build on its research base, “to assuage any loss of confidence in UK research”. They say it is “vital” that non-British EU academics be given assurances that they will be able to continue to live and work in the country, and that Britain reassures its EU partners of its commitment to current and future research.

The head of the Royal Society, Nobel laureate Venkatraman Ramakrishnan, has called for the government to underwrite grants given to British scientists in multinational EU projects, to prevent EU collaborators worrying about any future loss of funding. And some researchers hope that the government could guarantee to protect UK research from any financial losses from Brexit, by redirecting some of the money that would have been paid to the EU. When science minister Johnson was asked whether he could promise security for science funding at a 19 July debate on higher-education legislation, he avoided answering the question.


Brexit watch: Scientists grapple with the fallout
But it is politically very unlikely that government ministers can make solid assurances right now, says Sarah Main, director of the London-based Campaign for Science and Engineering. Because Brexit negotiations haven’t started — and because constraints on freedom of movement were a crucial factor in favour of the Brexit vote — no one can guarantee that the United Kingdom will be able to easily hire EU scientists, access EU research funding or play a full part in projects with EU partners in years to come.

Main says that, for now, she’d just like to hear from the new UK government that science is of core importance to its plans for economic growth. “We’ve moved from a political environment where that sort of thing was said quite regularly, to a point where we don’t really know,” she says.

Science on the agenda
Whatever happens, UK scientists want to make sure that their interests are heard when it comes to the Brexit negotiations with the EU. An online petition that calls for any Brexit deal to preserve UK access to EU collaborative research and development programmes has attracted more than 15,000 signatures in the ten days since it was launched. “We want to make sure that science doesn’t get forgotten,” says the petition’s co-founder David Robinson, a metrology specialist who runs Psi-tran, a research consultancy in Surrey, UK.

And more than 1,600 scientists — most of them early-career researchers at UK universities — wrote in a letter to The Times on 22 July that the government should protect scientists by acting to maintain access to EU funding and ensure the free movement of researchers. "If these are lost during EU renegotiations, we insist that the government puts equivalent UK-backed schemes in place," the authors say.


Nature special: Brexit and science
For now, it’s important for scientists to remember that the United Kingdom remains a full member of the EU, emphasizes Gill Wells, who heads a team dealing with queries about European funding at the University of Oxford. She says that there is some panicking. But she has sought and received assurances from the European Commission that there will be no bias against UK applicants for European Research Council grants. And she cautions against making too much noise about the impacts of Brexit on job recruitment. “The more awareness [there is] that people don’t come, the more people won’t come.”

But for non-British scientists pondering UK job applications, the uncertainty must be having an effect, says Philippe Froguel, a French geneticist at Imperial College London. “It is not a good time to go to the UK to do science,” he says. “Nobody in our field knows anything about the future, but everyone imagines the worst: fewer PhD students and academic recruits from Europe, and no access to EU funding, which means a loss of UK leadership in many fields of medical research. Many non-UK nationals like me are thinking of either taking a UK passport or leaving. A big mess indeed.”

Wot ya worryin about, just emigrate like you said

Science eh, keep people alive for longer and add to the care and pensions defecit you keep harping on about !
Not everything science does is progress don'tcha know ! :smart:

 

[Oscar Reed]

.

 

[Atilla]

Wot ya worryin about, just emigrate like you said

Science eh, keep people alive for longer and add to the care and pensions defecit you keep harping on about !
Not everything science does is progress don'tcha know ! :smart:

You're such a numpty.

You need to get an education. Wannabee is what you are and you think by associating your self with the Conservatives and your darling Mrs Thatcher you become something you are not. I doubt you understand much of anything. You have a bit of money and you're conservative party member. How bloody marvelous of you is that?


First it's the call to re-nationalise railways to improve them and now Ofcom still looking at ways to introduce competition by breaking up BT monopoly. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/07/26/openreach-to-be-legally-separate-from-bt-ofcom-rules/

Some quango yanks thought this would be a good idea to privatise natural monopolies, which Mrs T thought was fantastic and 40 years later we are still begging for service improvement and some competition yes indeed.

Yanks may have been right. Because they really do have competition and unlike our disbanded monopolies and mergers commission they come down very hard on restrictive practices.

Here is a small article from 1994 as it's not news but just big biz practice to rip off the UK consumer. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/monopolies-commission-labelled-a-soft-touch-1416443.html


To think you and I agreed on this point once about selling UK business to vested interests outside the UK and here you are laughing at losing British leading role in R&D

Do you understand anything much other than displaying your ignorance.

You laugh at real dangers facing the City of London and now R&D.


You're Mr know-it-all and that's why like Trump it makes you dangerously stupid.

 

[counter_violent]

You're such a numpty.

You need to get an education. Wannabee is what you are and you think by associating your self with the Conservatives and your darling Mrs Thatcher you become something you are not. I doubt you understand much of anything. You have a bit of money and you're conservative party member. How bloody marvelous of you is that?


First it's the call to re-nationalise railways to improve them and now Ofcom still looking at ways to introduce competition by breaking up BT monopoly. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/07/26/openreach-to-be-legally-separate-from-bt-ofcom-rules/

Some quango yanks thought this would be a good idea to privatise natural monopolies, which Mrs T thought was fantastic and 40 years later we are still begging for service improvement and some competition yes indeed.

Yanks may have been right. Because they really do have competition and unlike our disbanded monopolies and mergers commission they come down very hard on restrictive practices.

Here is a small article from 1994 as it's not news but just big biz practice to rip off the UK consumer. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/monopolies-commission-labelled-a-soft-touch-1416443.html


To think you and I agreed on this point once about selling UK business to vested interests outside the UK and here you are laughing at losing British leading role in R&D

Do you understand anything much other than displaying your ignorance.

You laugh at real dangers facing the City of London and now R&D.


You're Mr know-it-all and that's why like Trump it makes you dangerously stupid.

Eeewwwee, someone still isn't over Brexit I see

Whats up, did you not have a plan B ? How very remiss!

 

[counter_violent]

Something must have gone wrong at the BBC. They don't normally do good news stories, especially about Brexit

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36901027