> Almost my entire R&D team who received PhDs from British universities had them funded by the European Union
Well, there you go.
Well, there you go.
[0] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-55279468
[1] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-levell...
English regions used to receive funds of £1 billion a year from the EU regeneration fund for poor regions with the final year om 2018 the final figure being £1.12bn of the £8.4 billion total over the seven year period.
For 2018, this worked out to be Midlands (£190m), Yorkshire (£143m), Cornwall (£95m), the north west (£88m) and the north east (£80m).
Now this figure of £1.12bn (£8.4 billion over the seven year budget) has been cut to £220m for 2021-22 and £3.6bn in total for the same period.
[0] https://www.ft.com/content/eb56347b-42bb-4c56-906a-2ea24bd54...
p.s the comments section on the FT is probably the best on the internet, apart from maybe here
My impression as well. The articles are also good, but bear in mind that both have a noticeable neo-liberal point of view.
Same when it comes to the specific issue of access to talent - nothing in principle stopping the UK from making it extremely easy for talent to come to the UK.
Being able to pull from a Europe wide talant pool was a huge benefit to the UK and her universities.
So there was massive, irreplaceable benefits just for universities lost due to the Brexit project.
Along with that Brexit has cost the UK a ton of money.. this net contributer stuff was literal propaganda.
The UK is worse off now, with less funding to go around.
The fact that the UK was a net contributor to the EU is uncontroversial [1]. Please cite sources if you're making a drastic claim otherwise.
Indeed, the UK can now spend what they net contributed to the EU before. But I think it's doubtful that this makes up for everything else the UK lost in the process that isn't just some monetary number (in some government budget).
Things like the already mentioned access to the European research and university space - which hugely profited the UK because they used to be really good at "brain draining" the rest of the EU. Access to the European markets is now harder as well, translating directly to (at least in the short term) lost revenue and profit for UK companies, and lost tax revenue for the government, as well as some additional supply chain problems on top of the supply chain problems everybody else faces already.
The UK says their net contribution was "an average net contribution of £7.7 billion between 2014 and 2018". Of course this is only partially true. They got a lot more money back indirectly because they directly profited from some of the work various EU agencies did (and now they have to pay people to do the same work a lot of times). Some of these agencies were based in the UK, paid from the EU budget with individual employees paying taxes to the UK government. A lot of the university stuff (funding PhDs, Erasmus) is also not covered by their estimates (tho general research grants were). They lost access to EU funded research programs (like CERN or ITER), too, and now have to foot the bill to participate in those themselves, if they want and are allowed to still participate (e.g. ITER is not EU, and the UK will still participate, but where the EU previously paid a lot of the UK scientists and engineers out of their funds, now the UK government will have to pay them directly).
So I think their actual net contribution was more like 4-6 billion, and that doesn't still factor in lost opportunity costs due to now limited access to the European economic and labor markets, and the collective bargaining powers of the EU in things like trade deals, etc.
Given all that, I'd argue that there is ample reason to theorize Brexit was monetarily a net negative for the UK. It's hard to say yet, because the long and slow Brexit process took ages, everybody is still adopting, and it's therefore too early to have any reliable mid to long term numbers. And of course, the impact of COVID-19 makes it even harder to analyze just the Brexit outcomes.
So, back to topic, I would agree that at least the Brexit supporters who focused mainly on the net contributor thing (not all Brexit supporters operated that way) used it as propaganda - like the infamous red NHS bus - and not in a sound argument for their cause. They willfully ignored all the other things that would or could happen as a result of a Brexit.
This works only if you assume that the amount of money stayed the same. For now, there has been a flux of capital and business moving over to the continent. Trade decreased as well. This can change in the long run, depending on the policy of the Bank of England, but for now Brexit is a net loss in British government funding. Besides the fact that the money that was supposed to be saved was also supposed to be spent simultaneously on the NHS, infrastructure, and developing the “northern powerhouse” (of cards, unfortunately, as the North of England gets shafted again).
So you get an atrophied bureaucracy for distributing research money and combine it with a reduction in applicants and you get fewer graduate students about 2-5 years after you switch.
*significantly fewer people
Also, for now Brexit is costing more than the money that was supposed to be saved.
It includes mechanisms for the UK to pay if British scientists get too much of EU money. Who can bet anything on the British government keeping their word when they need to pay? The government with no qualms about breaking international laws “in specific and limited ways” when it suits them, and that is reneging on its promises about the Irish protocol?
Besides, this does not cover any use of other EU funds beyond Horizon Europe, like the ERDF.
I always assumed the whole raison d'etre of Brexit was that Conservatives wanted to avoid the obligation of paying into funds like this. Sounds lovely in theory but leaves less government money available to companies with social/professional connections to the cabinet.
Funny to see the red wallers finally realizing that too now.
If you are more aligned with the EU political leanings, you would want them to be able to force the UK government to do what you believe is the right thing. If you are more aligned with the tories, you want them to be free to do their thing without being told what to do by the EU. And that seems to correlate highly with whether you think Brexit was a good or a bad idea.
An interesting thought experiment I like to ask people to do is whether they would change their views on Brexit if the political leanings of the EU and the UK were flipped. I.e. the EU views were more like ones they disagree with (e.g. more right-wing perhaps), and the political leanings of the UK were more like what they agree with. For example, if the UK wanted to have more funding for science, but the EU frowned upon that regarding it as unfair competition, or something along those lines.
The UK wasn't practically constrained by EU rules on state aid or industrial policy. Most other EU countries had substantially higher levels of state aid. Rather it was the policy of successive British governments to leave it to the market. The EU was a useful scapegoat for deflecting blame.
The current Prime Minister even promised to stay in the single market while campaigning for Brexit, professing himself a 'Fan'. The single market was after all in large part the creation of Margaret Thatcher. Promising a hard Brexit was the way to win the Tory leadership contest.
I think the vote for Brexit was more an expression of identity than a political programme as such. Much like the rise of Trump, but with the UK tabloid press playing the role of Fox News.
The divide is young/old, socially liberal/authoritarian more than economic left/right. Historically the left had opposed EU membership seeing it as a capitalist project. But with the UK being on the economic right of the EU, the single market ended up being something of a moderating influence.
Authoritarian pensioners are electorally dominant and have decided to screw over their kids.
Could you provide a source for the promise to stay in the single market?
> The single market was after all in large part the creation of Margaret Thatcher.
In the context of the European Union, the 'Single Market' is a legal construct; it was created by the international treaties that underpin the union, and it grants powers to the EU that can be used in various ways, ostensibly for the purpose of regulating trade.
Thatcher was in favour of liberalising trade in Europe and was therefore in favour of a European free market in the broadest sense, but her opinion of the particular mechanisms implemented under the rubric of the 'Single Market' would depend on the details. She was in favour of the Single Market to the extent that it removed trade barriers and decreased regulation, and she was against it to the extent that it was deployed as cover (as she would see it) to bypass national parliaments and introduce new economic regulations at the supranational level. Here is a quote from a speech she gave in Bruges in 1988 to the College of Europe [1], which is probably the most famous statement of her views on the subject:
'The aim of a Europe open to enterprise is the moving force behind the creation of the Single European Market in 1992. By getting rid of barriers, by making it possible for companies to operate on a European scale, we can best compete with the United States, Japan and other new economic powers emerging in Asia and elsewhere.
And that means action to free markets, action to widen choice, action to reduce government intervention.
Our aim should not be more and more detailed regulation from the centre: it should be to deregulate and to remove the constraints on trade.
Britain has been in the lead in opening its markets to others [...]
Of course, we want to make it easier for goods to pass through frontiers.
Of course, we must make it easier for people to travel throughout the Community.
But it is a matter of plain common sense that we cannot totally abolish frontier controls if we are also to protect our citizens from crime and stop the movement of drugs, of terrorists and of illegal immigrants [...]
And before I leave the subject of a single market, may I say that we certainly do not need new regulations which raise the cost of employment and make Europe's labour market less flexible and less competitive with overseas suppliers.'
https://www.businessinsider.com/boris-johnson-single-market-...
What I see in the quotes in the link is Johnson expressing a personal preference for the UK to retain access to the single market and influence in its governing structures, in remarks made in 2013, a few years before the referendum was held. He talks about his voting intentions — at that time, he was the Mayor of London and had no vote in Parliament, so he is referring to how he might vote in what was, at that time, a hypothetical future referendum. The wider context, which is apparent from the contemporary reporting [1], is that, at the time, he was calling for the Single Market to be reformed, and for the UK to leave most of the EU's structures, but to remain part of the reformed market. A couple of years later, Cameron attempted to secure some reforms to the UK's relationship with the EU, but he focused on immigration and welfare rather than the Single Market. Cameron then presented the reforms (such as they were) as part of the basis for his support of the UK's continued membership of the EU during the referendum campaign, but no changes to the Single Market of the kind that Johnson had called for earlier were agreed.
My recollection of the role of the Single Market in the referendum is that the official Leave campaign was pressed to take a position on retaining Single Market membership; that they ultimately came down in favour of leaving (in order to remove the UK from the jurisdiction of the ECJ and allow EU regulations to be repealed); and that Johnson (who was part of the official campaign) subsequently adopted that official campaign position in his public statements. During the referendum itself he therefore supported leaving the Single Market, at least in its unreformed 2016 incarnation.
My memory is that the key statement of the official Leave campaign's position on the Single Market was made by Michael Gove on the Andrew Marr show. I remember it because the Leave side had been under pressure to make its position clear at the time, and Gove's response on the show seemed to signify that they had chosen to bite the bullet and accept leaving the Single Market. On the one hand, adopting a clear position meant that they couldn't be accused of equivocating on the subject any longer, but on the other hand, the Remain campaign was then able to argue more strongly that the Leave side was embracing trade disruption. Here's the relevant quote from the transcript of the Marr show[2]:
'Marr: Let me ask you, just before we leave the economics actually, a very simple question I have tried to get an answer to from various people on your side – is should we or should we not be inside the single market? Do you want us to stay inside the single market? Yes or no.
Gove: No. We should be outside the single market. We should have access to the single market, but we should not be governed by the rules that the European Court of Justice imposes on us, which cost business and restrict freedom.'
The BBC reported at the time that Gove's answer on the Marr show was a response to the pressure to clarify the Leave campaign's position on the Single Market.[3]
Incidentally, with regard to Johnson claiming to be a fan of the EU; I don't personally find this surprising. He has a well-publicised affinity for European civilization; in a book about ancient Rome that he published some years ago, he wrote approvingly about the ability of the Empire to unite diverse peoples as citizens of a common European state, and contrasted that history with the EU — the book was adapted into a television series for the BBC that he presented. His father also used to work for the European Commission; before he was sent off to Eton, he, his siblings and his future wife were educated at a school in Brussels that was established for the children of EU staff [4]. It may be worth noting that the comment was also somewhat qualified; he said that 'in some ways' he was 'a bit of a fan'.
[1] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boil-it-down-...
[2] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/08051604.pdf
[3] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36084457
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_School,_Brussels_I
Not necessarily. As a socialist, I really don’t align with the “current EU political leanings”. I also realise that the EU is still useful for several things, and that leaving it would be at best counter-productive.
Replace “the EU” with your country. You can be in disagreement with your current government without wanting to secede. That’s the same with the EU, really: for all its warts and idiosyncrasies, we are better united than divided.
One of the problem was that the British government does not keep its word, so people are wary of putting British colleagues only for their funding to get pulled at the last minute because lord Frost wants to annoy the EU.