[Closed] EU Referendum - are you in or out?

kelvin - Member
Yup, aging population means we need more immigrants, yet aging population also means political climate is more anti-immigrant.

I can't square that circle for you, sorry.

this is a sad irony of brexit

"they also take no account of the fact that people's value to a society is much more than their financial contributions"

I blame Thatcher.

TJ, thanks and I would say a fair interpretation, getting banned achieves little imo and I try and focus on the arguments and not the people.

Molgrips I am 100% committed to tariff free access to Europe just without EU membership inc freedom of movement, ECJ for anything except trade issues and no budget contribution, hardly walking away ? In fact to the contrary its looking gobally something the EU is very much against. Where I am realistic is that if the EU want to buggar around with political self preservation (ie jobs for the EU comission boys and (very very few) girls then I'll focus on growth and opportunity and just go WTO.

EDIT: I also see another side of the immigrant/refugee and indeed islamist terrorist argument and feel that Jamba would benefit massively by experiencing this (part of the real world) rather than spouting from what appears to be a priviledged, cossetted position.

Where I have lived and worked for most of the last 30 years it was 60% Remain. Pretty much anywhere else in the UK (ex Scotland) I would be experiencing a 55-60% Leave vote environment. As I have posted Scotland imo voted Remain for tactical Indy reasons.

I grew up in a council house in Tooting, Indian grandmother and many Indian relations, moved to Oz as a £10 POM, worked with global clients throughout my career and worked for one of the most ethically diverse organisations in the world with a multi national team.

I think that is why I am global in outlook and see the unattractiveness of an immigration system which basically favours Europeans over all other races and nationalities. If I was xenophobic then having an extra million white Christians (eg Poles) would be preferable no ?

As I have posted Scotland imo voted Remain for tactical Indy reasons

What? You now think 62% of scots now want independence? Give em another vote then, the people have spoken!

If I was xenophobic then having an extra million white Christians (eg Poles) would be preferable no ?

Xenophobic and racist do not mean the same thing. You can have a problem with "Poles", even if they share a skin tone with you. There is a big crossover between people who are racists and xenophobic, but you can be one with out being the other.

I think that is why I am global in outlook and see the unattractiveness of an immigration system which basically favours Europeans over all other races and nationalities.

And lots of people voted Leave because they also thought that our UK immigration rules are unfair to people from lots of other countries, but if they think UK immigration rules will change for the better because of the Leave vote they are deluded.

I'm wondering if the EU will soon be free to offer Mode 4 access to service sector workers in a FTA with India? UK is the main party trying to keep Indian workers out, no? Leave vote may well help more Indian workers carry out their trade in EU, but not UK. So, in that regard, the Leave vote may help some, but won't open up the UK in the slightest.

Lets be clear I have no issue with Poles. I have an issue of a million people net arriving in 10 years from one country. It's too many too quickly with integration issues not least for the UK population who where not ready for that, so yes partly our problem.

@metal no but it was instrumental in pushing the vote from 50/50 to 60/40 (imo). Scots also like the "EU keeping Westminster (ie English Tories) in check" argument.

[for clarity, by "for the better", I mean make it easier for more people to enter UK from non-EU countries]

As I have posted Scotland imo voted Remain for tactical Indy reasons.

As you've been told many times

[b]100% BOLLOCKS[/b]

I don't think you have a problem with "Poles", I think you want immigration decreased.
All this "unfair to non-EU immigrants" bullshit is just a disguise for wanting fewer immigrants.

Now, lots of other people voted Leave because they genuinely thought that it is because we are in the EU that the UK has overly restrictive immigration rules as regards the rest of the word. I genuinely feel for these people. They were conned.

@metal no but it was instrumental in pushing the vote from 50/50 to 60/40 (imo). Scots also like the "EU keeping Westminster (ie English Tories) in check" argument

And there was me thinking it was because we actually [i]wanted[/i] to stay in Europe. What an idiot I am. Glad you cleared it up for me...

Mind you I thought the Leavers only voted so because they wanted to keep out the [i]Untermensch[/i].... 😉

I know I'm one of few people that believe we should have more open immigration rules with ALL countries, but I'd like to point out the "numbers game" plays into the hands of the anti-immigrant hard right. Why? Because it makes people see people as a zero sum game… that allowing people from one country to work here necessitates stopping people form another country coming. That is only true if trying to find some "magic number" of immigrants (tens of thousands anyone) rather filling the posts that companies have with the right people to get things done.

Molgrips I am 100% committed to tariff free access to Europe just without EU membership inc freedom of movemen

You are aware that's having cake and eating it, yes?

If you really want tariff free trade you should've voted remain, as that is seriously in jeopardy now.

Yup, aging population means we need more immigrants, yet aging population also means political climate is more anti-immigrant.

Trying to solve the problem of an ageing population by increasing the population is by definition a Ponzi scheme. Where does that stop, when we get to 200 million people, 500m, a billion ?

You are aware that's having cake and eating it, yes?

If you really want tariff free trade you should've voted remain, as that is seriously in jeopardy now.

Well it's a win for the EU as the alternative is their goods are taxed €10bn more than ours. I can understand why the UK Govt think that's a possible outcome.

Free trade is far less important to me than sovereignty issues.

Trying to solve the problem of an ageing population by increasing the population is by definition a Ponzi scheme. Where does that stop, when we get to 200 million people, 500m, a billion

How very Logan's Run of you. 😉

PS - Sovereignty? Well we have that otherwise we would not be able to leave the EU club. What is it you actually mean by sovereignty? Traditionally it means parliament (our elected representatives) getting to exert its will. Now I will admit that has been in jeopardy since June 23rd.

Free trade is far less important to me than sovereignty issues.

Take me through the sovereignty issues?

Take me through the sovereignty issues?

People are the slaves of their nations, and shouldn't form supranational organisations to improve their lives.

Trying to solve the problem of an ageing population by increasing the population is by definition a Ponzi scheme.

So, you want old people to look after our old people, and the retired people to fund the services that other retired people use? An interesting proposition. And are you suggesting that having a static population size, but a shrinking workforce, is sustainable?

We're talking next 60 years here, not the next 6000 by the way.

Long, long term, the nature of work will probably change, meaning people work longer, with the support of different technology. But in the near term, we need workers. The best ones possible.

People can be looked after by people with work visas and no right to remain.

A perfect reason below why I want out of the EU ASAP

http://news.sky.com/story/eu-judges-rule-against-uk-governments-snoopers-charter-10703892

Your last few posts show that:

1) you want workers to be shipped out of the country when you see fit
2) you don't except people have rights beyond what their current national government see fit to grant them

I disgree, strongly, and fear that your views are quite a close fit to the views of those now running our country, and about to have what few external restrains they have on their actions removed.

"Come here, work hard, have no rights, then leave when we say"

Alternatively, go and live somewhere where they treat people like people.

A perfect reason below why I want out of the EU ASAP
http://news.sky.com/story/eu-judges-rule-against-uk-governments-snoopers-charter-10703892

Strangely that looks like one of the good reasons to stay to me.

Governments who spy on their population is very Orwellian / Stasi / Gestapo.

And our Brexit secretary agrees I think, for was it not he that launched the action?

A perfect reason below why I want out of the EU ASAP

And a perfect reason why I want in. The EU seems to be able to make better decisions on long term or social issues than our government.

People can be looked after by people with work visas and no right to remain.

Visas are shit for the workers. I think many potential immigrants won't come here, they'll go elsewhere. So we won't get their skills, and other countries will, which will end up more competitive than us.

And anyway - if you want the snooper's charter to be allowed in the UK then you want UK citizens to have fewer rights than those in the EU?

Really?

Anyone who voted leave voted for UK citizens to have less rights than EU citizens.

Britain should free itself from all the constraints which Europe imposes and from its essential social democratic model and go for a new type of economy altogether.

This economy would be defined in a sense by its very opposition to that European model. It would be free market, free trading, light regulation, low tax, low social protection – a sort of attempt to ?replicate the city states of Hong Kong and Singapore.

Has anyone got a guide for dummies about the Davies case, I've not really looked into it, but it seems the EU has ruled (rightly) that several aspects of it are illegal under current law.

Here is a link to the opinion of the Advocate General - the ECJ normally follows such an opinion.

http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?docid=181841&doclang=EN&mode=req&occ=first

Her sensible conclusion was:

In light of the foregoing, I propose that the Court’s answer to the question referred for a preliminary ruling by the Kammarrätten i Stockholm (Administrative Court of Appeal, Stockholm, Sweden) and the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) should be as follows:

Article 15(1) of Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (‘Directive on privacy and electronic communications’), as amended by Directive 2009/136/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009, and Articles 7, 8 and 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union are to be interpreted as not precluding Member States from imposing on providers of electronic communications services an obligation to retain all data relating to communications effected by the users of their services where all of the following conditions are satisfied, which it is for the referring courts to determine in the light of all the relevant characteristics of the national regimes at issue in the main proceedings:

– the obligation and the safeguards which accompany it must be provided for in legislative or regulatory measures possessing the characteristics of accessibility, foreseeability and adequate protection against arbitrary interference;

– the obligation and the safeguards which accompany it must observe the essence of the rights recognised by Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights;

– the obligation must be strictly necessary in the fight against serious crime, which means that no other measure or combination of measures could be as effective in the fight against serious crime while at the same time interfering to a lesser extent with the rights enshrined in Directive 2002/58 and Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights;

– the obligation must be accompanied by all the safeguards described by the Court in paragraphs 60 to 68 of its judgment of 8 April 2014 in Digital Rights Ireland and Others (C?293/12 and C?594/12, EU:C:2014:238) concerning access to the data, the period of retention and the protection and security of the data, in order to limit the interference with the rights enshrined in Directive 2002/58 and Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights to what is strictly necessary; and

– the obligation must be proportionate, within a democratic society, to the objective of fighting serious crime, which means that the serious risks engendered by the obligation, in a democratic society, must not be disproportionate to the advantages which it offers in the fight against serious crime.

The really odd thing about it is the person who raised the case.. Not that I disagree, but it just goes to show what disarray the government is currently in if they don't have a United opinion.

Are these people really the right people to lead us through potentially the biggest change I've seen in my lifetime? I'm sure they're not.

And the alternatives are even more diabolical.

Davies raising the case and losing is genious. [b]The result is perfect for Leavers[/b]. Everytime anyone asks me for an example of when the ECJ/EU interferes then I can justpost this.

1) you want workers to be shipped out of the country when you see fit
2) you don't except people have rights beyond what their current national government see fit to grant them

1) No they leave when their visa is up. I went to the US on the basis it was 3 years renewable once for a total of 6 and to Singapore on the basis that if I lost my job I would leave within 2 weeks. I forget the term of the visa, 3yrs I think
2) They have rights equal to those the UK government grant them, their homeland rights don't apply when in the UK

@molgrips In my view the right to remain secure and alive tops all other so called liberties.

dave call me dave davis has a long track record on civil liberties that is commendable so not that strange

Davies raising the case and losing is genious.

He didn't lose.

In my view the right to remain secure and alive tops all other so called liberties.

Would it be okay if a policeman follows you round at all times, night and day, just to make sure you're safe? We think he's trustworthy. Probably. Is that okay? You'll be safe, after all!

In my view the right to remain secure and alive tops all other so called liberties

Secure and alive.

[img] [/img]

@molgrips In my view the right to remain secure and alive tops all other so called liberties.

Now you're just being silly.

I went to the US on the basis it was 3 years renewable once for a total of 6 and to Singapore on the basis that if I lost my job I would leave within 2 weeks. I forget the term of the visa, 3yrs I think

But people can't build a life here on that basis. So it's not the same thing at all. Plus, you probably already had to have job arranged. And people in the US rarely go to the trouble of the paperwork to employ brits. I know, I've tried.

Most professionals I know have worked in Europe, and I know loads of Europeans who live and work here. I know no Americans who work here apart from those who are married to Brits. And I know only two others who've worked in America.

So if we have a visa system, it will seriously cut down on the skilled workers who come here, and cut down on Brits living and working abroad. This means our economy will suffer and importantly, Britain will become more insular because fewer of us will work abroad.

This is a bad thing. As an internationalist, Jam, I'm sure you'll agree.

Those that think politicians should be able to trample over the rights of people, with no supranational agreements and independent court to restrict them, either have no knowledge of history, or are dangerous, or both.

As for visas, they're a great way of restricting people and businesses. State control freaks love 'em.

Now you're just being silly.

This thread is 534 pages long, and you think he's just started to be silly now? 😉

I think many people, myself included, have been silly at times during this thread.

Jamba may be many things, but he is not consistently silly (some others are). However on this occasion he is being silly and needs some time out to consider what he wrote.

I know just one American, married to a French guy.

When I was in business an American weed in my shoes, I guessed he'd over stayed his Visa. I never saw or heard of him again, or his group of friends. If he'd had an EU passport he'd have been reminded of the law of the land, advised not to wee in peoples shoes but carried on living here as a right.

Even if people are allowed to work in Europe post Brexit they'll be sitting on an ejector seat. Which I assume is what Brexiters want for Europeans working in Britain. Lots of people in precarious positions, not great IMO.

2) you don't except people have rights beyond what their current national government see fit to grant them

2) They have rights equal to those the UK government grant them, their homeland rights don't apply when in the UK

I was talking about UK subjects, and the idea that all their rights should be at the mercy of whoever happens to be the UK government at any one time. The idea that a current government should not be kept in check by laws and courts worries me greatly. People talking about "Sovereignty" so often point to court rulings seeking to uphold laws and protect people from overreaching politicians… the "Sovereignty" call is a land grab to reduce the rights and protections for people, for individuals, and give them to the state. State control freaks love sovereignty above all else.

1) No they leave when their visa is up. I went to the US on the basis it was 3 years renewable once for a total of 6 and to Singapore on the basis that if I lost my job I would leave within 2 weeks. I forget the term of the visa, 3yrs I think

Davies raising the case and losing is genious. The result is perfect for Leavers. Everytime anyone asks me for an example of when the ECJ/EU interferes then I can justpost this.

I love it when you bold you repliars Jamba. It means that both of us realiars that you're talking shit.

@Edukator I imagine many of the EU nationals in the UK will apply for British passports once they have been here 7 years (except the Dutch who are not allowed to without losing their Dutch passport). As I said before my friends did just that, American, Kiwi, Columbian. Now they are as British as am I.

Nipper. Quite a big leap to go from collecting meta data to extermination camps. The quote I paraphrased by the way came from an Israeli maybe Netanyahu

We've had other threads but I'd go far beyond this "snoopers charter". Germans and French support the UK in ending the uncrackable end-to-end encryption madness.

We've had other threads but I'd go far beyond this "snoopers charter". Germans and French support the UK in ending the uncrackable end-to-end encryption madness.

ECJ for anything except trade issues

A perfect reason below why I want out of the EU ASAP

http://news.sky.com/story/eu-judges-rule-against-uk-governments-snoopers-charter-10703892

We've had other threads but I'd go far beyond this "snoopers charter". Germans and French support the UK in ending the uncrackable end-to-end encryption madness.

Jamba - your comment on liberty and life.

I wonder how many lives were saved by allowing 900,000 refugees somewhere to flee to?

Probably more than 12, or 120, or...

What happened is bad, but the genuine humanity of Germany in allowing the 900,000 in should be praised.

Merkel was well intentioned, she made a dreadful error of judgement however. I called her decision "idiotic" on here the day she anniunced ir and flagged security as a major issue along woth creating a dangerous and deadly draw factor.

I imagine the Germans didn't realise they where exoected to pay with their lives. I can't see Merkel making that argument either.
How many died trying to make it to Germany
A very large portion of the refugees where not in any danger and/or where citizens of safe countries to which they couod have returned
BBC recently ran a Newsnight special about the largest loss of life this year (500+) and they confirmed the boats had left from Egypt, in fact from right next to a military base who almost certainky would have been aware. The majority of passengers where from safe countries and Egypt is a safe country. All had paid $2000+ for the trip.

As I have said there is no doubt there are legitimate refugees and we should be helping them, our significant funding of the camps is a major part of that.

The majority of passengers where from safe countries and Egypt is a safe country. All had paid $2000+ for the trip.

And your solution is ...

Make it clear they have zero (or very close to) chance of a successful asylum request if they arrive that way
Pressure on people smuggling gangs (piece on French TV a while back on their Foreign Legion units patrollig the deserts in North Africa)
Pressure on Egyptain Govt (Turks where turning a blind eye until they where paid €9bn amd promised EU membership talks)

Germans have published their safe country list Afghanistan is on it, so no asylum requests granted.

You seem to have no understanding of what motivates these people to get onto rickety boats and head off into the unknown.

There are no figures for the survival rate of those who stayed in Alepo. I'd be very surprised if they were better than for taking flight and risking sea crossing.

There are no figures for the survival rate of those who stayed in Alepo. I'd be very surprised if they were better than for taking flight and risking sea crossing.

Sea? Syria has land borders. No need to get in a boat to escape from Syria.

got this email today

Dear Valued Customer,

This year has brought challenges for businesses across the UK mainly due to the uncertainty around BREXIT impacting Sterling over the last six months.
As a global company, Illumina’s product prices are set in USD, which are converted at a constant rate to create a local price list, to ensure that all customers are treated fairly and consistently. We monitor currency fluctuations regularly and adjust prices to avoid any misalignments between the different price lists.

Since the weakening of Sterling against the US Dollar, Illumina has absorbed this currency impact. However, effective from 30th of January 2017 Illumina will be adjusting its GBP local currency price lists to reflect updated exchange rates resulting in a price increase of 10% on all products.

We will continue to monitor currency movements regularly and where appropriate adjust rates to ensure consistency for all our customers across the UK and region.

unfortunately that means that our new project which starts in april will now be looking at about 100 less patient samples assuming prices dont rise any further, this is their second price rise since the vote.

cheers Brexit

Illumina will be adjusting its GBP local currency price lists to reflect updated exchange rates resulting in a price increase of 10% on all products.

Ban news for Illumina, good news for a local supplier in the same business.

Germany's currency was fixed low after WW2, worked a treat for them.

Ban news for Illumina, good news for a local supplier in the same business.

'Coz higher prices is the awsumz. I wonder where that'll lead us.

Higher prices of imports *is* the awsumz and it leads us to having a properly functioning economy.

unfortunately that means that our new project which starts in april will now be looking at about 100 less patient samples assuming prices dont rise any further, this is their second price rise since the vote.

cheers Brexit

The pound is now worth around $1.25 In 1972 it was worth $2.4. Cheers EU?

FRED.STLOUISFED.ORG "https://fred.stlouisfed.org/data/EXUSUK.txt"

The pound is now worth around $1.25 In 1972 it was worth $2.4. Cheers EU?

You being serious?

Higher prices of imports *is* the awsumz and it leads us to having a properly functioning economy.

Jambas, this is from the German Market thread but seems relevant here

Well I have certainly suggested, in fact demanded, we have full control over our borders are are not obliged by law to treat all EU citizens as having identical rights to UK citizens.

On what basis do you believe that EU citizens have identical rights to UK citizens. We are not part of Shengen, we have control over our borders and rights are not the same.

outofbreath - Member
Ban news for Illumina, good news for a local supplier in the same business

Is there a local supplier in the same business?

outofbreath - Member

Ban news for Illumina, good news for a local supplier in the same business.

seeing as illumina have pretty much the global monopoly on high throughput DNA sequencing technologies and supplies, all of the centres in the UK use their equipment and all of their competition Im aware of are also based in the USA, then no its not good for the local suppliers or anyone trying to do genetic research in the UK 🙁
We are looking at the Beijing Genomics Institute now to carry out the sequencing as even with the fall in the £ the are still able to beat the UK based services and grant funders are keen to see the study size maintained.

it leads us to having a properly functioning economy.

It depends on what you mean by 'properly'.

In South Wales for example for years their export was coal. They didn't grow fruit and vegetables, because the land wasn't right and they could spend their time mining coal instead. Was this a huge problem for South Wales? No, because they could use the cash they made to buy fruit and veg from East Anglia, or anywhere else they fancied.

So why do we have to buy kimbers' widgets from the UK, and not somewhere else in the EU? The answer you will give only makes sense if you start from the point of view that national borders are important. In other words, a nationalist argument.

all of the centres in the UK use their equipment and all of their competition Im aware of are also based in the USA, then no its not good for the local suppliers or anyone trying to do genetic research in the UK

Bingo. In the old days, every country would have had a supplier making things for its own country. But why be like this? If Illumina supply the whole world, they will be a big company, and big companies [i]can[/i] do better things by having larger R&D budgets, more power and economies of scale.

We cannot create a UK company to compete in every market sector. We're not big enough. The EU, however, IS big enough. So it's as if we can be part of a larger country, economically speaking.

Except now we're going to go back to being small.

The answer you will give only makes sense if you start from the point of view that national borders are important. In other words, a nationalist argument.

not the only argument.

We have a welfare state which is also pretty much bounded by those same borders.

Its function relies on a good balance of employment within the group of people it supports, and by buying goods and supporting industry within those same borders you are helping to maintain a healthy employment ratio.

If the welfare state was uniform across the EU then there might be no difference.

Its function relies on a good balance of employment within the group of people it supports, and by buying goods and supporting industry within those same borders you are helping to maintain a healthy employment ratio.

No reason why those people supported by the welfare state have to work in every industry, though, is there? Instead of making kimbers' widgets, people can be gainfully employed making stuff we're good at like ... umm .. jam.

Its function relies on a good balance of employment within the group of people it supports, and by buying goods and supporting industry within those same borders you are helping to maintain a healthy employment ratio.

No necessarily true at all - in fact flies in the face of the theory of international trade. You could be ensuring that employment is less as a result, not healthy

So why do we have to buy kimbers' widgets from the UK, and not somewhere else

We don't - we can buy them from anywhere in the world.

But the more we produce here for export the better, and a lower £ helps with that.

But the more we produce here for export the better, and a lower £ helps with that.

Not true at all. We should be producing goods and services in which we have a comparative advantage. Allocating resources to production of other goods is worse not better.

The answer you will give only makes sense if you start from the point of view that national borders are important

I can understand the case that national borders are wrong/needless.

I really can't understand the strongly held belief that National Borders are good, except with whichever nations happen to currently be in the EU when they are suddenly deeply immoral.

in other words, a nationalist argument.

The EU is, to a degree, a de-facto nation with Borders and Tariffs on people outside it. So both pro Remain and pro Brexit arguments are to some degree Nationalistic, the only debate is what the 'Nation' should be comprised of.

In fact Brexiters tend to view the EU as a trade organization. Remainers language seems far more about viewing the EU as a fledgling Nation. So on that basis you could argue the Brexiters are far less Nationalistic.

We don't - we can buy them from anywhere in the world.

And that's the internationalist argument.

Provided we can afford to buy them from elsewhere in the world of course.

No necessarily true at all - in fact flies in the face of the theory of international trade. You could be ensuring that employment is less as a result, not healthy

and supoprting a lot more people at home depressed because they can't get a decently paid job to supoprt their families.

What is good for a country is not necessarily good for all the people in it

What is good for a country is not necessarily good for all the people in it

But conversely, a country can't do much to develop itself if it's broke. All countries need economic activity. It's what governments choose to do with that cash that's the difference.

Not true at all. We should be producing goods and services in which we have a comparative advantage. Allocating resources to production of other goods is worse not better.

Problem is that is nothing. We simply don't have the Natural resources. We can't sub contract all production/design/development of everything to China because eventually we'll have nothing to pay for stuff with.

No TG, countries that do not specialise and do not trade will have fewer goods to enjoy at higher prices - a lose:lose situation

We can't sub contract all production/design/development of everything to China because eventually we'll have nothing to pay for stuff with.

We dont, so not sure what point you are trying to make, sorry

And that's the internationalist argument.

Provided we can afford to buy them from elsewhere in the world of course.

...and if we produce plenty of stuff here then we will have more chance of being able to buy.

Hence a slightly lower value of £ being good.

No we wont - our economy will be weaker - we will have fewer goods, sold at higher prices. That's illogical.

.and if we produce plenty of stuff here

So we produce the stuff we're good at, and other people produce the stuff that they're good at, and we trade. Sounds good.

We're all good at the stuff we already do, naturally. But with Brexit, either we pay more for other people's stuff due to tariffs, or we divert resources away from investing in what we're good at to doing what other people are better at. We'll never be as good at their stuff as they are, cos they have a big head start, and if we don't invest in what WE're good at, we won't stay as good at it for long.

Either way, the protectionist idea doesn't look good, because we're simply not big enough to compete.

That's what the EU is for. To make all these small countries operate like big ones.

what WE're good at

Whatever the hell that is ....

I think the problem is that the widgets involved are incredibly complex

The DNA has to be extracted from the tissues using kits that isolate the dna on the basis of its chemical properties, QC'd using chemical dyes and fluorimter then modified using various enzymes isolated from random bacteria such as those found in hydrothermal vents (so they can survive the hi temps required)
The sequencing machine itself is the evolution of 20 years of development- much of that done in the UK, 1000s of components involved in just one machine.

The techniques are very complex, millions of DNA fragments chemically labeled, amplified, labeled some more , purified lots, selected on basis of size and composition, passed through microfluidic channels and analysed by laser and an extremely sensitive CCD camera.

Obviously controlled by a ton of computing and then requiring an awful lot of processing power to reassemble the genetic jigsaw to make any sort of sense.

Itd be great if the UK government would invest in science research the way the Americans (and pretty much every single EU government) do, then we could maybe start develop and producing more of the reagents here.

Wed also have move all those computer and electronic component factories from China too....

Brexiters seem immune to understanding that in the modern world you dont just have stuff made in one country, we live in an era of highly interconnected global trade, protectionism is futile.