The whole case for leave based on the last few pages seems entirely predicated on out-of-context quotes from foreign politicians as opposed to whether or not the benefits of leaving outweigh the costs.
Sad to see the only remotely sensible Leave voter also going down this route.
The whole case for leave based on the last few pages seems entirely predicated on out-of-context quotes from foreign politicians as opposed to whether or not the benefits of leaving outweigh the costs.
Sad to see the only remotely sensible Leave voter also going down this route.
If you mean me, I was helping someone out by providing the link he had mentioned.
That's not really a great example of the EU being 'war hungry'. The EU is a lot of things (bureaucratic, inefficient, etc) but it hardly looks for war. If anything the EU is often criticised for not getting involved enough in sensitive conflicts. I appreciate that the Ukraine example is connected to the EU through part of the country wanting to join it and the Russian influence in the other part being against EU influence but using it to call the EU 'war hungry' kind of undermines any sensible argument. Regarding its 'unrelenting quest for expansion', if this was the case then there would be much more rush for Albania, Serbia etc to join rather than subject them to a long and complex application process.
This is part of the problem with the EU debate: ridiculously hyperbolic statements (from both sides) when in reality it is a complex issue which needs a rational approach. Working with other EU countries to modernise it would have been much better for the UK than just to walk away from it. Thanks for taking the time to respond though. Last week someone said that the EU would collapse in ten years but didn't respond when I asked them why exactly they thought this would happen.
The EU will have to change because over the next 10/15 years it will be reduced substantially in size due to member state withdrawals. There will be other referenda held on membership throughout the EU and countries will vote to leave. Even Macron stated a couple of weeks ago that the French people would probably vote to leave if a referendum was held there. They will probably never get the chance though unfortunately.
However, if referenda were held in Denmark, Sweden, Netherlands, Italy, Spain, Greece, Slovakia, Poland, Czech Rep, Austria some of those will leave. Some might leave without referenda. Even the Germans are getting pissed off with the whole thing.
Of course, the ever expansionist, war hungry and intrusive EU will drag some small poor states into the club from the east which will cost the richer members that are still inside ever increasing amounts into the budget causing them to question their own memberships.
The EU has sewn the seeds of it's own destruction long ago and nothing will stop that.
Macron did not say what your stating he did.
We had all the talk of the UK leaving bringing the whole project down during the referendum. I categorically remember one poster on here stating that several countries, including the Dutch were already putting a referendum in place during our own debate. He was unable to substantiate this in any way of course because it was made up bullshit he'd probably read on someone's Facebook and taken as fact.
It was the Leave campaign's way of providing reassurance and validation for their position. It hasn't happened since our vote and the rise of the right/nationalism in Europe has largely been seen for what it was and subsided. Le Pen being a case in point.
Outside of a few shouty right wing politicians in Hungary for example there doesn't seem much appetite for self harming the nation among our European neighbours at all. They're not that fecking stupid nor do they have a rabid right wing press driving the agenda in quite the same way we do.
Macron most certainly did say that. I watched it and saw his lips move while he was saying it. Maybe you should have checked the facts first before trying to call someone a liar.
Madrid, in which way is the EU war hungry? Have you forgotten Crimea already? The way they stuck their big, stinking unwanted nose into business that doesn't concern them in their unrelenting quest for expansion and to try to undermine Russia was sickening and hundreds lost their lives as a result. A future war between the EU and Russia is most certainly not out of the question. The EU likes puffing it's chest out and playing games which is not really equipped to finish.
Also for a trading bloc the EU has strange ambitions don't you think? Why on earth would a so called trading union need or want it's own armed forces? Why does it need a paramilitary style police force?
The EU has already started butting it's snorkel into the affairs of the African continent as if it has some moral and legal obligation to do so. It won't be long before they are putting troops on the ground and physically removing any governments of African nations that they don't see as conducive to EU policy in the region. Wars will be a direct result of this interference.
The remarks I have highlighted would be regarded as offensive by a clear majority of citizens of Kiev, especially those who are younger and more educated. They are so offensive that many of them would probably conclude you must be a Russian troll. Of course I know you are not, and of course you are entitled to your views. i am entitled in turn to regard them as so ignorant, especially in respect of current Russian global policy, that they are effectively unpatriotic. You don't protect your country from Putin's interference by covering your ears and eyes and hoping he will go away.
The whole case for leave based on the last few pages seems entirely predicated on out-of-context quotes from foreign politicians as opposed to whether or not the benefits of leaving outweigh the costs.
Sad to see the only remotely sensible Leave voter also going down this route.
If you mean me, I was helping someone out by providing the link he had mentioned.
Why is that a problem?
Because it implies you agree with what eCafc's interpretation of the quote, which is out of context.
Leuth wasn't disputing that Macron had said words along those lines, but Macon never said the French would probably vote to leave. He was specifically responding to the question 'Could there be a same outcome'. Could and would are too very different words. Would is certainty whereas could means it is possible. Macron was speaking in broad terms of voters being angry at change and globalisation and that if in similar circumstances the French had a referendum along those lines of ill-feelings then they could vote to Leave against their better interests. Absolutely not the same as the French would probably vote to Leave.
Apologies if you feel lumped in with the others who think out of context quotes are a sound foundation for any argument to Leave but as the saying goes, if you lie down with dogs you get up with fleas.
I wanted a link about the EU aggressively expanding into Africa and so on and so forth. "Go on and do your own research - the truth is out there!" is the parting shot of the right-wing troll
I wanted a link about the EU aggressively expanding into Africa and so on and so forth. "Go on and do your own research - the truth is out there!" is the parting shot of the right-wing troll
Unfortunately the flipside of that is when they do provide a link it is usually to Breitbart or Stormfront then you get accused for not believing the evidence.
The EU will have to change because over the next 10/15 years it will be reduced substantially in size due to member state withdrawals. There will be other referenda held on membership throughout the EU and countries will vote to leave. Even Macron stated a couple of weeks ago that the French people would probably vote to leave if a referendum was held there. They will probably never get the chance though unfortunately.
However, if referenda were held in Denmark, Sweden, Netherlands, Italy, Spain, Greece, Slovakia, Poland, Czech Rep, Austria some of those will leave. Some might leave without referenda. Even the Germans are getting pissed off with the whole thing.
Of course, the ever expansionist, war hungry and intrusive EU will drag some small poor states into the club from the east which will cost the richer members that are still inside ever increasing amounts into the budget causing them to question their own memberships.
The EU has sewn the seeds of it's own destruction long ago and nothing will stop that.
Macron did not say what your stating he did.
We had all the talk of the UK leaving bringing the whole project down during the referendum. I categorically remember one poster on here stating that several countries, including the Dutch were already putting a referendum in place during our own debate. He was unable to substantiate this in any way of course because it was made up bullshit he'd probably read on someone's Facebook and taken as fact.
It was the Leave campaign's way of providing reassurance and validation for their position. It hasn't happened since our vote and the rise of the right/nationalism in Europe has largely been seen for what it was and subsided. Le Pen being a case in point.
Outside of a few shouty right wing politicians in Hungary for example there doesn't seem much appetite for self harming the nation among our European neighbours at all. They're not that fecking stupid nor do they have a rabid right wing press driving the agenda in quite the same way we do.
Macron most certainly did say that. I watched it and saw his lips move while he was saying it. Maybe you should have checked the facts first before trying to call someone a liar.
Madrid, in which way is the EU war hungry? Have you forgotten Crimea already? The way they stuck their big, stinking unwanted nose into business that doesn't concern them in their unrelenting quest for expansion and to try to undermine Russia was sickening and hundreds lost their lives as a result. A future war between the EU and Russia is most certainly not out of the question. The EU likes puffing it's chest out and playing games which is not really equipped to finish.
Also for a trading bloc the EU has strange ambitions don't you think? Why on earth would a so called trading union need or want it's own armed forces? Why does it need a paramilitary style police force?
The EU has already started butting it's snorkel into the affairs of the African continent as if it has some moral and legal obligation to do so. It won't be long before they are putting troops on the ground and physically removing any governments of African nations that they don't see as conducive to EU policy in the region. Wars will be a direct result of this interference.
Thank you @stonemuse you've saved me the trouble of Googling (sorry Chippy).
From the article/transcribe:"..Asked whether a Leave or Remain vote in France could have ended with the same result, Mr Macron told the BBC's Andrew Marr Show: "Yes, probably. Probably in a similar context. But our context was very different so I don't want to take any bets..."
So not quite the same thing as, "...Macron stated a couple of weeks ago that the French people would probably vote to leave if a referendum was held there." It's a bit like those theatre reviews where they'd turn the bit that said, "Astonishingly bad!" into "Daily Mail - Astonishing!".
And I never called you a liar btw @E-cafc but it's clear you've placed your own interpretation on what Macron actually was saying.
I wanted a link about the EU aggressively expanding into Africa and so on and so forth. "Go on and do your own research - the truth is out there!" is the parting shot of the right-wing troll
Unfortunately the flipside of that is when they do provide a link it is usually to Breitbart or Stormfront then you get accused for not believing the evidence.
Nah it's always to some site called something like RealNewsAlert or something
The EU will have to change because over the next 10/15 years it will be reduced substantially in size due to member state withdrawals. There will be other referenda held on membership throughout the EU and countries will vote to leave. Even Macron stated a couple of weeks ago that the French people would probably vote to leave if a referendum was held there. They will probably never get the chance though unfortunately.
However, if referenda were held in Denmark, Sweden, Netherlands, Italy, Spain, Greece, Slovakia, Poland, Czech Rep, Austria some of those will leave. Some might leave without referenda. Even the Germans are getting pissed off with the whole thing.
Of course, the ever expansionist, war hungry and intrusive EU will drag some small poor states into the club from the east which will cost the richer members that are still inside ever increasing amounts into the budget causing them to question their own memberships.
The EU has sewn the seeds of it's own destruction long ago and nothing will stop that.
Macron did not say what your stating he did.
We had all the talk of the UK leaving bringing the whole project down during the referendum. I categorically remember one poster on here stating that several countries, including the Dutch were already putting a referendum in place during our own debate. He was unable to substantiate this in any way of course because it was made up bullshit he'd probably read on someone's Facebook and taken as fact.
It was the Leave campaign's way of providing reassurance and validation for their position. It hasn't happened since our vote and the rise of the right/nationalism in Europe has largely been seen for what it was and subsided. Le Pen being a case in point.
Outside of a few shouty right wing politicians in Hungary for example there doesn't seem much appetite for self harming the nation among our European neighbours at all. They're not that fecking stupid nor do they have a rabid right wing press driving the agenda in quite the same way we do.
Macron most certainly did say that. I watched it and saw his lips move while he was saying it. Maybe you should have checked the facts first before trying to call someone a liar.
Madrid, in which way is the EU war hungry? Have you forgotten Crimea already? The way they stuck their big, stinking unwanted nose into business that doesn't concern them in their unrelenting quest for expansion and to try to undermine Russia was sickening and hundreds lost their lives as a result. A future war between the EU and Russia is most certainly not out of the question. The EU likes puffing it's chest out and playing games which is not really equipped to finish.
Also for a trading bloc the EU has strange ambitions don't you think? Why on earth would a so called trading union need or want it's own armed forces? Why does it need a paramilitary style police force?
The EU has already started butting it's snorkel into the affairs of the African continent as if it has some moral and legal obligation to do so. It won't be long before they are putting troops on the ground and physically removing any governments of African nations that they don't see as conducive to EU policy in the region. Wars will be a direct result of this interference.
Thank you @stonemuse you've saved me the trouble of Googling (sorry Chippy).
From the article/transcribe:"..Asked whether a Leave or Remain vote in France could have ended with the same result, Mr Macron told the BBC's Andrew Marr Show: "Yes, probably. Probably in a similar context. But our context was very different so I don't want to take any bets..."
So not quite the same thing as, "...Macron stated a couple of weeks ago that the French people would probably vote to leave if a referendum was held there." It's a bit like those theatre reviews where they'd turn the bit that said, "Astonishingly bad!" into "Daily Mail - Astonishing!".
And I never called you a liar btw @E-cafc but it's clear you've placed your own interpretation on what Macron actually was saying.
The whole case for leave based on the last few pages seems entirely predicated on out-of-context quotes from foreign politicians as opposed to whether or not the benefits of leaving outweigh the costs.
Sad to see the only remotely sensible Leave voter also going down this route.
If you mean me, I was helping someone out by providing the link he had mentioned.
Why is that a problem?
Because it implies you agree with what eCafc's interpretation of the quote, which is out of context.
Leuth wasn't disputing that Macron had said words along those lines, but Macon never said the French would probably vote to leave. He was specifically responding to the question 'Could there be a same outcome'. Could and would are too very different words. Would is certainty whereas could means it is possible. Macron was speaking in broad terms of voters being angry at change and globalisation and that if in similar circumstances the French had a referendum along those lines of ill-feelings then they could vote to Leave against their better interests. Absolutely not the same as the French would probably vote to Leave.
Apologies if you feel lumped in with the others who think out of context quotes are a sound foundation for any argument to Leave but as the saying goes, if you lie down with dogs you get up with fleas.
It implies nothing of the sort. If you looked at my post, I made no comment.
And I have no problem being associated with leavers on here, we are all Charlton and that is our main rationale for being on this site.
Okay, fair play but what context could it be taken it? It's either remain or leave and he said they would probably vote leave.
No he didn't. Could, not would.
Digging large holes with a small spade is pretty pointless. I think we both have a good idea how the French would/could vote in an in/out EU referendum. That is why they will be denied the opportunity to do so. Far too risky from the EU point of view.
1. No I do not believe my arguments have floundered.
2. I am convinced that, over the next five years, a multi-speed EU will emerge.
3. Did I really give that ‘maths’ argument? I don’t recall it and I very much doubt it. I have never once even mentioned the migration angle because I have no issues with it.
4. Thanks.
If you are convinced it will emerge then why vote leave? Why not remain and guide the development to better suit our desires than leave and have no influence at all, and probably set back the chances of a multi-speed EU by years, if not permanently.
I voted leave for numerous reasons which I have stated previously but also hoping that a leave vote would act as a catalyst for the multi-track solution to emerge.
As stated before, I believe the EU is too bureaucratic for change to happen quickly from within.
The Brexit decision, combined with a forward looking EU as Macron wishes to create, is the reason that I believe it will happen within 5 years.
I did not see that happening without Brexit ... at least, not so quickly. Macron is the piece I did not expect, so that helps enormously.
Okay, fair play but what context could it be taken it? It's either remain or leave and he said they would probably vote leave.
No he didn't. Could, not would.
Digging large holes with a small spade is pretty pointless. I think we both have a good idea how the French would/could vote in an in/out EU referendum. That is why they will be denied the opportunity to do so. Far too risky from the EU point of view.
Good lord you talk a load of shit. Maybe get a grasp of the English language then try reading it again.
I know how the French would probably vote. They would probably vote to stay in, as most polls indicate support for EU membership is rising across the EU27 thanks to the clusterfuck that is Brexit. As much as I enjoy the other EU rationally looking at the burning car wreckage that is the UK post-referendum, not sure I enjoy being part of the guinea pig in this failed experiment. Cancel Brexit for the good of the UK and fuck what the cretins who want a damaging Brexit think.
Southbank, that looks interesting but I'm stuck behind The Times' paywall. Can you give any further details? I googled the keywords in the headline and this seems to be an exclusive that no-one else is running. The other articles that come up in my search all tell a completely different story.
Sorry, no. There is a website going live later this week apparently. I think this initiative will attract a lot of support.
Okay, fair play but what context could it be taken it? It's either remain or leave and he said they would probably vote leave.
No he didn't. Could, not would.
Digging large holes with a small spade is pretty pointless. I think we both have a good idea how the French would/could vote in an in/out EU referendum. That is why they will be denied the opportunity to do so. Far too risky from the EU point of view.
If the French had a vote in the right context on an in/out referendum on the EU, everybody knows they would vote 90% to remain. Yay, I can do random speculation too!
Southbank, that looks interesting but I'm stuck behind The Times' paywall. Can you give any further details? I googled the keywords in the headline and this seems to be an exclusive that no-one else is running. The other articles that come up in my search all tell a completely different story.
Sorry, no. There is a website going live later this week apparently. I think this initiative will attract a lot of support.
I think it will attract a lot of ridicule.
If you click on the link in my post you should see the whole article.
Okay, fair play but what context could it be taken it? It's either remain or leave and he said they would probably vote leave.
The context that France had an overwhelming right wing press campaigning against EU membership for 40 years? The context that the ruling party went chasing votes and promising all sorts of nonsense to prop up it domestically? The context that it had an aging demographic harking back to bygone eras? And so on...
Quite clearly, he said it could vote to leave if the circumstances were the same...but they are definitely not the same! What part of that leads you to carry on saying he still said something else beyond it fitting in with your earlier point that the UK is the first of many to withdraw from the EU?
All this talk of what Macron actually said intrigued me ... so ... at the risk of @Fiiish making another implication about my motives ... I wanted to understand the background.
It appears that back in April last year, he stated:
“I'm a pro-European, I defended constantly during this election the European idea and European policies because I believe it's extremely important for French people and for the place of our country in globalisation," Mr Macron, leader of the recently created En Marche! movement, told the BBC. "But at the same time we have to face the situation, to listen to our people, and to listen to the fact that they are extremely angry today, impatient and the dysfunction of the EU is no more sustainable. "So I do consider that my mandate, the day after, will be at the same time to reform in depth the European Union and our European project." Mr Macron added that if he were to allow the EU to continue to function as it was would be a "betrayal". "And I don't want to do so," he said. "Because the day after, we will have a Fexit or we will have [Ms Le Pen's] National Front (FN) again."
So it is not as clear cut as some would like to think.
I think the Irish hard border issue is a bit of a red herring. Why would we spend millions on customs officials to impose WTO tarriffs on goods from Eire and ultimately EU? Make it a voluntary declaration with wholly inadequate penalties for cheating. The UK gets EU goods cheaper. Everyone is a winner.
Southbank, that looks interesting but I'm stuck behind The Times' paywall. Can you give any further details? I googled the keywords in the headline and this seems to be an exclusive that no-one else is running. The other articles that come up in my search all tell a completely different story.
Sorry, no. There is a website going live later this week apparently. I think this initiative will attract a lot of support.
I think it will attract a lot of ridicule.
If you click on the link in my post you should see the whole article.
I think the Irish hard border issue is a bit of a red herring. Why would we spend millions on customs officials to impose WTO tarriffs on goods from Eire and ultimately EU? Make it a voluntary declaration with wholly inadequate penalties for cheating. The UK gets EU goods cheaper. Everyone is a winner.
Southbank, that looks interesting but I'm stuck behind The Times' paywall. Can you give any further details? I googled the keywords in the headline and this seems to be an exclusive that no-one else is running. The other articles that come up in my search all tell a completely different story.
Sorry, no. There is a website going live later this week apparently. I think this initiative will attract a lot of support.
I think it will attract a lot of ridicule.
If you click on the link in my post you should see the whole article.
I welcome any website ... from either side ... that provides more information.
The valid criticism at the time of the referendum from many people was that not enough pertinent information was available.
I think what he means is a lot of ridicule from people like him who believe there is no intellectual case for leaving. Fortunately that means all he has is insults which make Leavers stronger in their conviction that it is the right thing to do.
Southbank, that looks interesting but I'm stuck behind The Times' paywall. Can you give any further details? I googled the keywords in the headline and this seems to be an exclusive that no-one else is running. The other articles that come up in my search all tell a completely different story.
Sorry, no. There is a website going live later this week apparently. I think this initiative will attract a lot of support.
I wouldn't take for granted that anyone is unbiased (mostly because it's not possible), but the correct academic approach is to seek to recognise one's own bias and look to limit its impact, which is why, in academic terms, the majority peer-reviewed view is important (because it represents greater rigour). That's not to say that outlier opinions are necessarily wrong, just that they are, much less likely to be right.
What this grouping indicates is a desire by some to make a specifically political statement. It is a reaction to the overwhelming weight of opinion in academia, which argues that Brexit will be bad for UK universities and research, which has become a political statement, but, on the whole, I would suggest that that was not the motivating factor. As with all other sectors of the economy/society, there is a desire to protect what benefits there are from the EU.
Southbank, that looks interesting but I'm stuck behind The Times' paywall. Can you give any further details? I googled the keywords in the headline and this seems to be an exclusive that no-one else is running. The other articles that come up in my search all tell a completely different story.
Sorry, no. There is a website going live later this week apparently. I think this initiative will attract a lot of support.
I think it will attract a lot of ridicule.
If you click on the link in my post you should see the whole article.
I welcome any website ... from either side ... that provides more information.
The valid criticism at the time of the referendum from many people was that not enough pertinent information was available.
I think what he means is a lot of ridicule from people like him who believe there is no intellectual case for leaving. Fortunately that means all he has is insults which make Leavers stronger in their conviction that it is the right thing to do.
I am so tempted to change your final few words to "it is the right wing thing to do"....
Comments
Sad to see the only remotely sensible Leave voter also going down this route.
Why is that a problem?
This is part of the problem with the EU debate: ridiculously hyperbolic statements (from both sides) when in reality it is a complex issue which needs a rational approach. Working with other EU countries to modernise it would have been much better for the UK than just to walk away from it. Thanks for taking the time to respond though. Last week someone said that the EU would collapse in ten years but didn't respond when I asked them why exactly they thought this would happen.
Leuth wasn't disputing that Macron had said words along those lines, but Macon never said the French would probably vote to leave. He was specifically responding to the question 'Could there be a same outcome'. Could and would are too very different words. Would is certainty whereas could means it is possible. Macron was speaking in broad terms of voters being angry at change and globalisation and that if in similar circumstances the French had a referendum along those lines of ill-feelings then they could vote to Leave against their better interests. Absolutely not the same as the French would probably vote to Leave.
Apologies if you feel lumped in with the others who think out of context quotes are a sound foundation for any argument to Leave but as the saying goes, if you lie down with dogs you get up with fleas.
From the article/transcribe:"..Asked whether a Leave or Remain vote in France could have ended with the same result, Mr Macron told the BBC's Andrew Marr Show: "Yes, probably. Probably in a similar context. But our context was very different so I don't want to take any bets..."
So not quite the same thing as, "...Macron stated a couple of weeks ago that the French people would probably vote to leave if a referendum was held there." It's a bit like those theatre reviews where they'd turn the bit that said, "Astonishingly bad!" into "Daily Mail - Astonishing!".
And I never called you a liar btw @E-cafc but it's clear you've placed your own interpretation on what Macron actually was saying.
And I have no problem being associated with leavers on here, we are all Charlton and that is our main rationale for being on this site.
As stated before, I believe the EU is too bureaucratic for change to happen quickly from within.
The Brexit decision, combined with a forward looking EU as Macron wishes to create, is the reason that I believe it will happen within 5 years.
I did not see that happening without Brexit ... at least, not so quickly. Macron is the piece I did not expect, so that helps enormously.
I know how the French would probably vote. They would probably vote to stay in, as most polls indicate support for EU membership is rising across the EU27 thanks to the clusterfuck that is Brexit. As much as I enjoy the other EU rationally looking at the burning car wreckage that is the UK post-referendum, not sure I enjoy being part of the guinea pig in this failed experiment. Cancel Brexit for the good of the UK and fuck what the cretins who want a damaging Brexit think.
Yay, I can do random speculation too!
If you click on the link in my post you should see the whole article.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/brains-for-brexit-top-academics-and-thinkers-put-the-case-for-leave-d7pzdhb2s?shareToken=23af8906efcad933115270415b30f7fc
Quite clearly, he said it could vote to leave if the circumstances were the same...but they are definitely not the same! What part of that leads you to carry on saying he still said something else beyond it fitting in with your earlier point that the UK is the first of many to withdraw from the EU?
It appears that back in April last year, he stated:
“I'm a pro-European, I defended constantly during this election the European idea and European policies because I believe it's extremely important for French people and for the place of our country in globalisation," Mr Macron, leader of the recently created En Marche! movement, told the BBC.
"But at the same time we have to face the situation, to listen to our people, and to listen to the fact that they are extremely angry today, impatient and the dysfunction of the EU is no more sustainable.
"So I do consider that my mandate, the day after, will be at the same time to reform in depth the European Union and our European project."
Mr Macron added that if he were to allow the EU to continue to function as it was would be a "betrayal".
"And I don't want to do so," he said. "Because the day after, we will have a Fexit or we will have [Ms Le Pen's] National Front (FN) again."
So it is not as clear cut as some would like to think.
The valid criticism at the time of the referendum from many people was that not enough pertinent information was available.
If so, I'm not sure how representative such a group would be, and it may have some difficulty taking others with it (https://brianmlucey.wordpress.com/2018/02/18/a-fisking-we-shall-go-graham-and-robert-in-brexit-central/#more-9451).
I wouldn't take for granted that anyone is unbiased (mostly because it's not possible), but the correct academic approach is to seek to recognise one's own bias and look to limit its impact, which is why, in academic terms, the majority peer-reviewed view is important (because it represents greater rigour). That's not to say that outlier opinions are necessarily wrong, just that they are, much less likely to be right.
What this grouping indicates is a desire by some to make a specifically political statement. It is a reaction to the overwhelming weight of opinion in academia, which argues that Brexit will be bad for UK universities and research, which has become a political statement, but, on the whole, I would suggest that that was not the motivating factor. As with all other sectors of the economy/society, there is a desire to protect what benefits there are from the EU.