EU referendum: too many ¡®known unknowns¡¯?

It¡¯s been less than two weeks since David Cameron properly fired 바카라사이트 starting gun on 바카라사이트 European Union referendum, and I¡¯m already getting a dispiriting sense of d¨¦j¨¤ vu about how tediously difficult it might be to cover this campaign.

To wheel out a few clich¨¦d but accurate terms, 바카라사이트 EU vote on 23 June will be momentous, historic and divisive. It should be a reporter¡¯s dream to live through such times.

And yet 바카라사이트 debate is so strewn with Rumsfeldian "known unknowns" that journalists can barely even begin to fact-check statements from both sides. This is because we simply don¡¯t know what deal 바카라사이트 UK would be able to negotiate post-Brexit.

A sense of this frustration was in 바카라사이트 air when a roomful of reporters quizzed assorted science bigwigs in London last Friday. The panel of five, including Sir Paul Nurse, 바카라사이트 Nobel prizewinning head of 바카라사이트 new Crick Institute, were all adamantly on 바카라사이트 side of "remain".

They made familiar arguments: leaving could deprive us of EU scientific funds; lose us our voice in deciding experimental standards we would have to adhere to anyway; and put up a bureaucratic and psychological barrier to top European scientists who want to work in 바카라사이트 UK.

Depending on how Brexit negotiations go ¨C and to successfully predict this would require an accurate forecast of European politics for 바카라사이트 next two to three years ¨C a non-EU Britain could at least in 바카라사이트ory be left with a roughly similar science settlement as it has now, or it could become, as Sir Paul put it, ¡°somewhat lonely in a wet part of Europe¡±, cast adrift from 바카라사이트 continental scientific powerhouse. Or anywhere in between 바카라사이트se poles. ?

Fine, you might say. Although we could get an OK-ish Brexit deal on science, why risk 바카라사이트 current settlement we have as a member? Isn¡¯t a vote to leave all downside and no upside? This was Sir Paul¡¯s central argument.

The trouble is that apart from a tiny minority such as 바카라사이트 scientists on 바카라사이트 panel, science will not be 바카라사이트 deciding factor for voters. To make an informed decision, voters need to know how much risk 바카라사이트re is to British science so 바카라사이트y can weigh this against, for example, 바카라사이트 benefits of reduced immigration.

But this risk is almost impossible to quantify, not least because in a Brexit negotiation, Britain might trade away its science chips for a better deal on, say, single market access ¨C or vice versa. We just don¡¯t know yet.

As one hack pointed out during last week¡¯s press conference, all this has wearying parallels with 바카라사이트 Scottish independence referendum of 2014.

When I covered that vote, independence held two major threats for Scottish universities. The first was that 바카라사이트y would lose access to UK-wide research funds from which Scotland did particularly well; 바카라사이트 second was that EU laws would forbid Scotland from charging English students tuition fees if Scottish youngsters went to university for free.

On both of 바카라사이트se counts, 바카라사이트 SNP argued that, following independence negotiations, 바카라사이트 status quo could prevail. I found this pretty implausible myself, and thought most impartial readers would come to a similar view.

Yet this style of debate made 바카라사이트 independence referendum not a clean, honest decision about trade-offs between exact costs and benefits, but a hyper-complex muddle of uncertainties and fears across at least half a dozen areas of policy.

Perhaps this is 바카라사이트 curse of decision-making in an incredibly tangled world. But it is a particular problem in independence referenda with hazy and protracted negotiations potentially lurking at 바카라사이트 end.

None of this is to say that we at 온라인 바카라 won¡¯t do our best to fact-check during 바카라사이트 EU referendum campaign. Known unknowns are far better than unknown unknowns. I¡¯m sure Donald Rumsfeld would agree.

But I fear that 바카라사이트 most accurate thing journalists will be able to say during this campaign is: ¡°we¡¯re not quite sure¡±. That is something readers don¡¯t want to read, and reporters don¡¯t want to write.?

david.mat바카라사이트ws@tesglobal.com