User:Susan Schneegans/sandbox/brexit

The United Kingdom has decided to withdraw from the European Union, a process that is widely known as Brexit. This article examines both the actual and potential consequences of this decision for British and European academics living in the United Kingdom (UK).

The British government has announced that it will exercise its right to leave the European Union (EU) by triggering Article 50 of the Treaty of European Union before the end of March 2017. This decision follows a referendum on 23 June 2016, in which 51.9% voted to leave the EU. From the time of notification, the UK has two years during which to arrive at an agreement with the EU on the terms of its withdrawal.

All members of the EU belong to the single market, the customs union and the European Research Area, in return for adhering to what are known as the four freedoms: the free movement of people, goods, services and capital. In February 2017, the British government published a White Paper outlining its 12 guiding principles for the forthcoming withdrawal negotiations with the EU. One of these guiding principles concerned controlling immigration: 'We will have control over the number of EU nationals coming to the UK'. Another concerned securing the status of EU citizens who are already living in the UK, and that of UK nationals in other Member States, 'as early as we can'. A third vowed to protect and enhance existing workers’ rights. The government also said it would ensure free trade with European markets: 'We will forge a new strategic partnership with the EU, including a wide reaching, bold and ambitious free trade agreement and will seek a mutually beneficial new customs agreement with the EU'. The government also pledged to ensure that 'the UK remains the best place for science and innovation: we will remain at the vanguard of science'.

Implications for UK's post-Brexit relationship with EU
The impact of a Brexit on science and innovation will depend heavily on the post-withdrawal relationship between the UK and the EU. There exist several model relationships for European countries outside the EU, such as the 'Norwegian model' and the 'Swiss model'. Were the UK to opt for the Norwegian model, it would remain both a member of the European Economic Area and an associated member of the European Research Area, like Iceland. In this case, the UK would continue to make a significant financial contribution to the EU. The UK would be subject to much of the body of EU law and policy, yet its future influence on the EU would be limited. This model would not be comptatible with the UK leaving the single market and customs union. To remain in the single market, the UK would have to adhere to the principle of the free movement of people, which it could not do if it limited the number of EU nationals coming to the UK. This is why the government speaks of concluding a free trade agreement and new customs agreement with the EU in its White Paper of February 2017.

Alan Sked, London School of Economics emeritus professor (and founder of UKIP), has pointed out that non-EU countries such as Israel and Switzerland have signed agreements with the EU in terms of the funding of collaborative research and projects. He has also suggested that, if Britain left the EU, Britain would be able to reach a similar agreement with the EU and said that educated people and research bodies would easily find some financial arrangement during the two-year transition period following the trigger of Article 50.

Were the UK to opt for the Swiss model, it would not remain a member of the European Economic Area (EEA). Switzerland has been unable to sign the EEA treaty, owing to a negative vote in a Swiss referendum in November 1992. Notwithstanding this, a bilateral agreement with the EU allows Switzerland to take advantage of the main EU instruments in place for research, including the seven-year framework programmes for research and innovation, the Future and Emerging Technologies programme, the grants of the European Research Council and the Erasmus programme for student exchange. In return, Switzerland adheres to the four cornerstones of the EU's single market: the free movement of people, goods, services and capital. It has signed the Schengen agreement. However, the EU suspended negotiations on Switzerland’s participation as a full member in Horizon 2020, after the Swiss government informed it that giving citizens of the EU's new member state, Croatia, unrestricted access to the Swiss job market would be incompatible with the vote in the Swiss referendum of February 2014 approving stricter controls on immigration. On 22 December 2016, the Swiss parliament adopted a bill that gave priority to Swiss nationals and foreigners registered in Swiss job agencies but avoided introducing quotas on EU citizens. The EU voiced its approval of the law, putting an end to a 46-month crisis. The Swiss model would, thus, also be incompatible with limiting EU immigration to the UK.

As for Israel, it has participated in the EU’s framework programmes for research and innovation since 1996. Like Norway and Switzerland – but also Iceland, Moldova, Turkey, Ukraine and others –, it is associated with Horizon 2020 through a formal agreement and makes a financial contribution to EU research. For example, Israel has been a Scientific Associate of the European Synchrotron Radiation Facility (ESRF) since 1999. When the agreement was renewed in 2013 for a fourth term of five years, Israel’s contribution was raised from 0.5% to 1.5% of ESRF’s budget. Israel also joined the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) in 2014, after having participated in its activities since 1991 and becoming an associated member in 2011.

A pole of attraction for globally mobile talents
Despite a persistently low research intensity by EU standards – 1.63% of GDP in 2013, compared to an EU average of 2.02% – the UK has a reputation for scientific excellence. It produces 15% of the world’s most highly cited articles for a share of just 4% of the global research pool. About 32 000 non-British EU academics occupy 17% of UK university teaching and research posts. In 2012, the UK hosted the second-largest contingent of international PhD students in science and engineering (9%) after the USA (49%). International fee-paying university students represent a key source of funding for the British university system. They also contribute to the UK's knowledge pool.

Scientists in favour of staying in the EU have noted that membership allows researchers to move freely between member states and to work with no restrictions. A group of leading British scientists wrote a letter to the Times on 22 May 2015 stating that ‘it is not sufficiently known to the public that the EU is a boon to UK science and innovation. Freedom of movement for talent and ambitious EU science funding programmes, which support vital, complex international collaborations, put the UK in a world-leading position'. A Nature poll in March 2016 found that 83% of UK scientists were in favour of remaining in the EU. Pro-remain scientists set up a Scientists for the EU website in 2015.

For Kurt Deketelaere, secretary-general of the League of European Research Universities in Leuven, Belgium, the potential loss of mobility and collaboration is worrying for scientists across Europe, as scientists wish to work with the best in their field'. However, for Angus Dalgleish, a cancer and HIV researcher at St George’s, University of London, who once stood for election as a member of the pro-Brexit UK Independence Party, universities already maintain successful collaborations with non-EU members, so opting out would have 'no negative impact on scientific collaboration whatsoever'.

Concerns over future funding of research
As an EU member state, the UK participates in the European Research Area. All EU members contribute to the budget for each seven-year framework programme for research and innovation, the most recent of these being Horizon 2020, adopted in 2014. British researchers receive about £1 billion a year from EU funding programmes such as Horizon 2020 but access to this money will now be entirely renegotiated with the EU. Speaking at Oxford’s Wolfson College in July 2016, the university’s chancellor, Chris Patten, said that Oxford received perhaps more research income than any European university, with about 40% coming from government. 'Our research income will of course fall significantly after we have left the EU unless a Brexit government guarantees to cover the shortfall', Lord Patten said.

UK universities rely on the EU for around 16% of their total research funding and are disproportionately successful at winning EU-awarded research grants. For instance, in 2013, the UK received more research grants (over 1000) from the European Research Council (ERC) than any other EU country; 426 of these grants went to non-nationals based in the UK, the largest number of any EU country. Germany obtained just over 600 ERC grants. This has raised questions about how such funding would be affected by a Brexit.

The UK is also entitled to the EU's structural funds, which are increasingly being used to finance research-related infrastructure. Structural funds will be out of reach for the UK, however, once it leaves the EU. The withdrawal from the EU may also incite international firms to scale down their plans to invest in research and development in the UK.

A July 2016 investigation by The Guardian suggested a large number of research projects in a wide range of fields had been hit after the referendum result. The newspaper reported that European partners were reluctant to employ British researchers due to uncertainties over funding. It cited a confidential survey of the UK’s Russell Group universities, a group of 24 institutions renowned for research and academic excellence, including the Universities of Oxford, Cambridge and Edinburgh, University College London and Imperial College. In one case, 'an EU project officer recommended that a lead investigator drop all UK partners from a consortium because Britain’s share of funding could not be guaranteed'.

The uncertainty over future funding for projects stands to harm research in other ways, the survey suggests. A number of institutions that responded said some researchers were reluctant to carry on with bids for EU funds because of the financial unknowns, while others did not want to be the weak link in a consortium. One university said it had serious concerns about its ability to recruit research fellows for current projects.

In August 2016, the British government promised to step in to pay UK contributions to Horizon 2020 projects after Brexit, provided that the projects were bid for before the day that the UK left the EU. In November 2016, the prime minister announced an increase in government investment in research and development worth £2 billion a year by 2020 and a new Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund to back priority technologies.

Some academics are contemplating moving to an EU country, in order to preserve their access to EU research funding post-Brexit. In February 2017, Jean-Michel Blanquer, dean and president of Essec Business School outside Paris, said that he had found some ‘strong interest’ among British colleagues in moving to the University of Paris Seine campus in France, a consortium of universities and related establishments that includes Essec Business School. This consortium has issued an invitation to British universities to establish campuses on site post-Brexit. A number of EU politicians have also made ouvertures to the British academic community. For instance, when French presidential candidate Emmanuel Macron addressed more than 2,000 French expatriates in London in February 2017, he called for nationals to return home and for British banks, researchers and academics to move across the Channel after Britain leaves the EU.