The British EU Referendum

[Jubal]

It's a-coming, and the starting gun has been fired!

Right, I'll attempt to write a relatively unbiased starting piece to clarify the situation:

Unsurprisingly the Prime Minister decided to stay in the EU, so now all the main party leaders in the UK except Nigel Farage are backing the Remain campaign. There are some heavy hitters for Leave now too though, notably Boris Johnson, mayor of London and expert in making everyone think he's a lot less savvy than he actually is. The Conservative party is badly split over the issue and many grassroots members (who are far more Eurosceptic than the parliamentary party) are reportedly very unhappy with Cameron. Some Labour MPs will also back Leave, though it's not seen as such an important issue by Jeremy Corbyn (who is relatively Eurosceptic for a Labour leader) so the stakes are far lower for him. The Scottish Nationalists, Lib Dems, and Greens seem fairly united behind Remain, whereas UKIP have Leave as more or less their raison d'etre.

In terms of the actual campaign, the Leave campaigners are hitting from two main angles - right wing "Burkean" types like Michael Gove believe in national sovreignty as a fundamental good in itself. On the left, people like George Galloway are pushing the idea that EU regulations stop the UK becoming a true socialist redistributive state (which arguably ignores the fact that there are a few other things in the way there, but there we go...) Both wings are tapping into a lot of resentment among lower middle class and working class voters who worry that the EU is a net drain on the UK's public finances, and that freedom of movement across Europe opens the door to high immigration resulting in depressed wages and creates more risk of foreign extremists entering the country.

Meanwhile the Remain campaign is similarly split - ranging from a few federalists (the EU's most strong partisans, mostly Lib Dems), to leftist EU reformers who want to see the system massively democratised and made less friendly to corporate business, to right-wing pro-business campaigners who value the EU primarily for its access to the continental markets. The campaign so far has been pushing mostly on a message of jobs and trade, and also the security benefits gained by cross-border cooperation. This may be effective, on a similar model to the No campaign in Scotland whose relentless focus on the economy won out, but has led to accusations of it being a rather workmanlike and lacklustre campaign that's not catching imaginations despite the backing of most of the political spectrum and indeed almost every other goverment to have weighed in on the issue.

And of course the inevitable recent polls:
22 Feb ICM REMAIN 42 LEAVE 40 (Nb only poll since renegotiation announced)
17 Feb Mori REMAIN 54 LEAVE 36

[Pentagathus]

I don't know how I'm going to vote yet, I'm thinking probably to remain but it's exceedingly difficult to make an objective decision on this considering that there's so much conflicting data about the EU and I've not really any idea which bits are true.
I don't like the EU as it currently is but it seems like a good long term investment. I guess as a science doer I should vote to remain since the EU makes life a fair bit easier if I want to do science after I graduate.

[Jubal]

I am emphatically in favour of remain. I genuinely don't particularly like how the EU works and think a lot of rubbish things about it need fixing (none of which Cameron bothered to focus on predictably), but the only sensible response to that IMO is "campaign to fix the EU".

It would be an economic disaster to leave, especially as countries like the US have already ruled out bilateral trade agreements and countries like India are desparate for us to stay in. If we left suddenly our exports and imports would shoot up in price and kill off a lot of smaller businesses very quickly indeed. We're fiscally a net contributor to the EU, sure, but that doesn't counterbalance the fact that our trade balance would be wrecked if we left. If we wanted to get access back into the single market we'd probably need to pay a high percentage of what we currently do to the EU and would still have to abide by a fair percentage of the rules, but we wouldn't get a seat at the negotiating table for the money.

It would also just be a massive faff for academia, travel, lots of stuff we pretty much take for granted, plus I don't trust the government to draft effective national equivalents for the EU's working rights and environmental legislation which would be two of the largest things that would suddenly cease to apply.

[Glaurung]

I'm another emphatic "remain", with very much the same views as Jubal. The EU could be rather better than it is, but the alternative is much worse in all sorts of ways.

Penty: there is a great deal of funding for science, and academia in general, from the EU, all of which would be cut off if we left, with no guarantee of any replacement at all from the UK government. There is also a lot of collaborative working with European universities and other institutions, all of which would be cut off too. If you want more information, there's a campaign group (Scientists for Europe?) that can probably tell you everything you want to know.

[Clockwork]

In truth penty, there isn't a definitive answer of whether it'll be better or not economically in the long run to leave.


I believe it'll be better to leave for the following reasons:


We'll cut out a large amount of admin bs and EU regulations which I don't think anyone can deny, slow down and sometimes disrupt both domestically and internationally. This also frees us up to trade and deal with only us in our best interests.


We'd have greater control on immigration, taking only the ones we need like Australia/Canada. Overall I believe we still have a positive effect from immigration but it can be made better with more control.


Our tourism will become a lot more profitable for obvious reasons. We already do pretty well considering our weather and food sucks.


Outside the EU trade is freer, what this means is we get and give more market driven trade.


Also to consider:


We'd still be able to trade with the US but as Jub said, it wouldn't be a free trade agreement, it'd be at regular tariff. Which wouldn't be so bad to be honest, we export more than we import from them. Currently the Eu doesn't have a free trade agreement with the US either but it's been in talks for a while, something called TTIP (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership).


France would be (even bigger) dicks to us forever just because we're leaving their culture club.


In the short term things could (probably would) suck. GBP value will probably go down and the value of UK companies will lower due to becoming higher risk because nobody is certain what will happen if we leave. In the long term however both should rise above what is possible being in the EU because of the freer trade and the improvement in national output (or/and GDP) (the immigration thing again, cut the chaff coupled with using tarrifs in our favour).


We'd gain more sovereignty, things would be ours to succeed at or portugal up. It's my preference but other people like having less national power and trade it for a giant safety net.

[Jubal]

Yes - I think the key argument for getting out is if you're determined that power over Britain should entirely reside in Westminster, which is a position one can take though I can't say I see why it's a particularly important principle in itself. Also if you're really convinced that EU regulation and EU immigration are major problems for us, which personally I'm not, but some people are.

What makes you think leaving the EU would improve tourism? Just the fact that fewer people could afford to go abroad?

I think it's not so much the safety net aspect of the EU that appeals to me personally, as the fact that I think it's a pretty effective tool for cooperating on things where we're stronger collaborating than being apart. Also stops international incidents and confrontations getting too bad, because we just shout at each other around tables in Brussels in situations where in the 19th century we'd have done more dangerous things like casually have a gunboat "get lost" in someone else's territorial waters etc. Academia would get badly screwed over by a Leave vote, undeniably, because of all the cooperative links that the EU facilitates and funds, which I think would be bad in the long run.

[Clockwork]

It's not that we leave the EU and then shut off all communications with Europe. Literally the same things will happen, academic collaboration won't be largely affected. You've bought into scaremongering there mate.

The European Research Council’s (ERC) own website states:
Q: Can a Principal Investigator who holds a permanent position in a research organisation in the US apply for an ERC Advanced Grant with a Host Institution located in Europe?
A: Yes. A Principal Investigator engaged in the US or in a third country can apply for an ERC grant in cooperation with a Host Institution in Europe as long as (s)he will be engaged and hosted by a Host Institution based in an EU Member State or an Associated Country.


You don’t need to be a member of the European Union to apply for ERC funding.

Secondly, nobody is claiming anyone will be deported after a vote to leave. Someone currently working and studying here will be allowed to continue to do so. Deportation would be insane for a start, and these are the type of talented people an independent Britain would seek to attract more of. Universities will be able to hire staff from across the globe, as they currently do. Not being part of a political union certainly has not stopped British academics from going to work almost anywhere.

The same goes for students. Seven out of ten international students came from non-EU countries in 2013. Universities would still be able to admit the best and brightest if we left. Also those taking part in the Erasmus programme, which allows students from across the world to study abroad for a year, would continue as normal. Countries such as Iceland, Norway and Israel are part of the Erasmus scheme, without needing to be members of the EU.
We strongly encourage Universities for Europe, academics and students to look soberly at the facts before writing scare pieces in the national press.

The other thing about leaving the EU which you might not have thought about wrt international incidents, we won't be able to afford to get involved. I'd predict that largely we'd get involved with as little as possible other than anything NATO.

[Jubal]

These worries aren't scaremongering, they're what I see directly on the ground as someone in a university, I'm afraid to say.

As to your first point, ERC funding grants are only one part of that picture, and I should also point out that what you've quoted applies specifically to the PI and requires the PI to be hosted by a European institution. That is to say, what it would allow for is a Professor or permanent academic fellow, the people already high up the academic food chain, to go to Europe and get a grant to do some work whilst at a European university. So we couldn't actually get that money into UK universities (unless we applied to be an Associated Country, which is possible but costs money and we wouldn't get first dibs on funding pots any more so we'd almost certainly lose the fact that we're currently #1 in creating collaborative research projects in Europe). So what you've referenced describes actually quite a specific situation applying to the higher tier of academics, not a general principle that allows for all other sorts of extra-European collaboration.

The things I worry about are much wider than funding pools - higher travel costs coupled with the extreme funding restraint that's been applied to our sector will make conferences a lot more difficult particularly for PhD or Masters student researchers, who a) do a lot of the coalface work in many academic departments and b) are often surviving on very little money. It would also make it harder for us to shape the direction of European academic funding - even if we bought back into the ERC, we'd be paying in again and we'd lose the seat at the table for determining where research goes (Switzerland is in that position now for example), and compulsory free movement agreements are likely to be attached to any attempt to re-enter such programmes (again, this is currently a problem for Switzerland, who have ended up having their access to schemes severely restricted because of their refusal to implement such agreements; they're currently suspended from the Erasmus programme IIRC).

The community of academics I work and live around isn't big - it's a subsection of a couple of small departments in just one university. I still know talented academics from outside the EU who like it here and would like to work here, but are leaving the UK immediately at the end of their studies because our deportation and visa regime is now so harsh that they won't have time to apply for jobs here between finishing their studies and being forced to leave. We had a Birmingham researcher get arrested by immigration police recently whilst going through the procedures for trying to stay in the UK. Also, if you think it's easy to hire staff from across the globe, it's absolutely not. The migration restrictions on getting researchers in from outside the EU are extremely onerous, I know scientists who've found it extremely difficult to get staff in from outside the EU, especially in non-permanent posts. It's a little easier if people are moving here for a permanent job, but that's just not how a lot of academia operates, we need freedom of movement to be able to function effectively.

I'm not necessarily saying that all that should sway your view, if you believe in national sovereignty at all costs then fine. But I'm afraid to say you're wholly wrong to call these concerns scaremongering, this is an issue right now for non-EU nationals, which after a Leave vote would have the EU nationals - of whom there are huge numbers working in our research sector - added to them. This won't on its own kill off the UK research sector, of course, and the financial issues could be solved with a very large cash injection into academia to counterbalance the losses, but I'm not holding my breath for that happening and it would certainly be less cost-effective than remaining in the system.

[Clockwork]

Surely you can see that the important bit is that becoming an associated country is a simple affair and EU would have no real grounds to deny it. Unless they just want to make an example of a country that leaves their fan club....Wait that makes it sound like it's some kind of evil organisation holding academia, national sovereignty and free European trade to ransom. That's hilarious actually.


However, yeah, wrt the PI, that's for us going over to European unis or labs or whatever. How is that useless? We get to export our academics almost as a commodity. That's great.


The government is going to pay for more things with the money it saves from not being part of the EU. I don't get how you think leaving the EU means cutting everything away that was built collaboratively. It doesn't take away anything already done, it doesn't necessarily mean less funding either. It means we'll be paying for our own armadillo and other people will be paying for theirs.


Also as an aside hardly worth mentioning, if you have a list of European collaborative research it includes a load of those bullarmadillo studies and surveys telling you that red wine and cheese gives you cancer. And that it doesn't. A lot of them are just rubbish exercises in logic or pushing things too far with no need for 'collaboration'.


Travel costs will go down in the long run, and who knows, the govt may subsidise academic travelling with the £13bn they save leaving the EU. Also why paying for ERC membership as a reason to stay is a joke. If you look just at the short term all the time then there's no point, as I've already said, the short term will most likely be rocky. It's the long term and lasting benefits that will make it worthwhile.


RE: Erasmus, Switzerland has like a quarter of its total population as immigrants. They want to limit immigration more than they want their students easier access to foreign unis, that's it. It's ridiculous that EU is making them choose one or the other. I don't know what they're doing in compensation but creating a govt scheme would do the job just as well theoretically. Here we don't have that problem quite yet and even then, negotiating a suitable immigration stance which would keep us part of erasmus can't be beyond us.


Just because someone wants to come here doesn't mean they should or have any right to, what kind of logic is that? And just because we educate someone doesn't mean we have to give them a job here either. It's not even a question of whether someone is more or less capable.


If what you say is true wrt hiring internationally, how does being in or out of the EU change things? It's still up to those peoples respective countries to grant them money to study here, as we pay for our guys and gals to study and collaborate abroad. It isn't up to us to fund every bugger that wants to study or get their first break here. But a history professor I know regularly hires international PhD students. Yes I still think it's just scaremongering and you're blowing things out of proportion or not taking govt action into account.

[Jubal]

Becoming an associated country is moderately simple for countries like Israel that aren't already heavily invested in the EU research system and are signing up to get on a few collaborative projects. We, on the other hand, host considerably more EU funded projects than our population would imply; being an associated member is possible but the idea that we'd still be able to take such a cost-effective leading role as an associate member is a fantasy and we'd get to make almost no spending decisions as an associate either.

I'm not saying what you posted is useless, I'm just saying that it didn't mean what you claimed it meant, refers to fairly specific situations, and doesn't help with funding UK institutions.

Your "aside" is bullarmadillo, as you'd know if you'd actually looked at the list of research results for EU-funded projects which is available here, or read the BIS department's 2013 report on our research sector here. As for Erasmus and ERC membership, why should the EU bend their rules just because a non-member wants them to? EU citizens benefit from freedom of movement (including ours), so freedom of movement is a demand to participate in EU programmes. You're basically applying massive double standards to say that it's OK for us to demand to be let back into EU projects but not OK for them to place conditions on that; they're not "holding things to ransom" by expecting countries to play by the same rules they do and you can't define "reasonable" as "I'm going to leave but I still expect to be invited to the party all the time when I want to turn up", that's ridiculous.

Basically you're just shooting in the dark wrt finance and costs, there is absolutely no reason to believe that travel costs will decrease long term, nor indeed is there any reason to assume that a government that has exercised very high financial restraint on the research sector would suddenly turn around and give us the money we need to remain competitive, which given the extra costs of setting up international collaborations would be considerable. You're basically banking on the long term unleashing some sort of magical economic independence unicorn, which you have provided basically no evidence for the existence of whatsoever.

That's also really not how research funding works. We fund a hell of a lot of EU and outside-EU researchers to work here, and we do it because we need the best, brightest people to keep a competitive research sector. The calculations on these things aren't just made on the basis of whether grads and researchers bring in money, we need them here to actually do the research and keep our status as one of the world's leading countries on science and innovation. Encouraging highly skilled people to bugger off as soon as possible will just lead to a brain drain out of the UK. Being out of the EU would apply to EU grads the same harsh systems applied to non-EU grads; my own department would probably suffer extremely badly as the specialists we need from S & SE Europe just won't want to come and work here any more if they're not even given the time to stay and apply for funding between research projects.

[Clockwork]

We, on the other hand, host considerably more EU funded projects than our population would imply; being an associated member is possible but the idea that we'd still be able to take such a cost-effective leading role as an associate member is a fantasy and we'd get to make almost no spending decisions as an associate either.

http://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/2014/nov/07/european-research-funding-horizon-2020

Take a look where it says Switzerland gets some of the highest grant money and host research. And also how it's used more to fund these short-term research projects. Like I was saying.


Your second link is telling us how much research is done by man hours, articles written and funds allocated not the quality of the articles, efficiency of man hours or funds. It says we research more biomedical and social sciences than anything else. Wait, wouldn't biomedical and social sciences be exactly the cancer scare research I was saying? It does however show Canada as having a very similar level of international co-operation as we do (p 60-62). Which is funny because they're not in the EU, the bastion of all scientific research. The only thing supporting that is anecdotes from professors and that's it. The actual data doesn't support it at all. The case studies are interesting but exchange of knowledge is not EU specific again.

As for Erasmus and ERC membership, why should the EU bend their rules just because a non-member wants them to?

It's within 'the rules' but again, you're too het up on rules man. These are more negotiations than hard and fast legality But also they don't have to, these things are agreements not battles or arguments. It'll be worse for UK research in the short term again, but once deals and agreements are negotiated it'll be like nothing happened. Except we'll be richer and in better control of our country.

EU citizens benefit from freedom of movement (including ours), so freedom of movement is a demand to participate in EU programmes. You're basically applying massive double standards to say that it's OK for us to demand to be let back into EU projects but not OK for them to place conditions on that

You've misunderstood, no if they want to be a part of our projects or vice versa and we want that, sure, each give a little and get a little. Don't need to demand anything or threaten or whatever. You can simply ask and be okay with them saying no. You don't need to be in the EU for this to happen, again, Canada has very similar ratio of national and international research to us.

By the by, the first link includes such scientific marvels as 'eroticism in sacred music' and 'communication is key to innovation in food industry'. Truly exceptional work.

Basically you're just shooting in the dark wrt finance and costs, there is absolutely no reason to believe that travel costs will decrease long term, nor indeed is there any reason to assume that a government that has exercised very high financial restraint on the research sector would suddenly turn around and give us the money we need to remain competitive, which given the extra costs of setting up international collaborations would be considerable. You're basically banking on the long term unleashing some sort of magical economic independence unicorn, which you have provided basically no evidence for the existence of whatsoever.

It would be unprecedented so looking for a definitive answer is pointless. There is reason, if you're not seeing it then okay, all right, whatever. We get to tax as we like (currently EU output VAT and the like), we get to pick and choose immigrants which hopefully will decrease unemployment (not guaranteed of course by any stretch). We'll be paying out less to the EU (I doubt we'll get away with paying nothing however) and we'll be able to negotiate trade deals with places like India, Australia, China, UAE which the EU hasn't iirc. Why would the government suddenly give money to research? Because the people doing it before would be pulling funding. That's a pretty compelling reason. That's just what's on the top of my head, there are other reasons, some I won't understand, some I'll question probably I don't know. Saying there is no economic reason to leave the EU is disingenuous though.

Encouraging highly skilled people to bugger off as soon as possible will just lead to a brain drain out of the UK. Being out of the EU would apply to EU grads the same harsh systems applied to non-EU grads; my own department would probably suffer extremely badly as the specialists we need from S & SE Europe just won't want to come and work here any more if they're not even given the time to stay and apply for funding between research projects.

There's no encouragement for them to leave, you're adding unnecessary words. Some people just have to leave and some don't. That's it. I don't know reasoning behind why some internationals (outside EU) can stay and others can't, but it'll be there somewhere. Nobody does something for no reason at all. There is always an intention or purpose. Which segues nicely onto the case in bham. It's ridiculous, that isn't the intention of the law.

[Jubal]

wouldn't biomedical and social sciences be exactly the cancer scare research I was saying?

"No" is the short answer to that. That would mostly be things like all the projects you ignored whilst cherry-picking two titles out of about the first ten pages of titles that you didn't think looked useful, like the research done into neural networks, new ways of picking up breast cancer symptoms, the extent to which stress and social factors influence heart disease. Also how is the development of new strategies and systems to make it easier for food companies to innovate and sell more cost-effective new products a bad thing or a waste of money?

That Guardian article is from 2013, before Switzerland imposed its migration restrictions. Its ability to access funding has completely tanked since then, with the EU funding received effectively halved - and, more importantly, the number of projects coordinated from Switzerland dropping by over a factor of ten. http://www.startupticker.ch/en/news/january-2016/horizon2020-less-funding-for-swiss-researchers

Whilst you can argue that case on the economy, you're relying on so many imponderables and uncertainties - negotiating hundreds of bilateral trade deals is actually not that simple - that concluding that "we will have more money" and "travel will get cheaper" is basically just assuming that the absolute best outcome is the only likely outcome, which is a bad way to make decisions in general IMO. As for researchers, you just seem to be wilfully not accepting how harsh our system now is on foreign nationals working here, including highly skilled ones. People won't wait and try and find work here if it means risking the embarrassment of getting locked up in a detention centre, they'll probably just decide to do their PhDs elsewhere. If we're not trying to stay competitive in making the country attractive for good people to stay and do research in (and for non-EU folk we're getting increasingly unattractive), they will vote with their feet and the UK will lose out in the sectors it currently leads the rest of the world in.

Anyhow, in more recent news:

• Net immigration remains relatively high and roughly static at 323,000 according to new statistics, around 50% of that being EU migration.
• Lord Owen, formerly a Labour minister and then a founder of the SDP, has backed Brexit
• The government has - a day before the deadline - applied for EU funding to help repair the heavy storm damage in Cumbria and other parts of northern England. (And Cameron forced a Eurosceptic minister to announce it, in an amusing act of political trolling)

[Clockwork]

Who in their right mind thinks that if we remain, our costs of staying won't go up? I was talking to someone yesterday who was convinced that if we stay our relationship with the EU would be the same as it is now. No. We'll be getting portugaled at every opportunity by them.


Also, who the hell asked Obama what he thinks? portugal that guy, he's not got a tiny country who can't do armadillo except pay bills, teach and spy on peeps. His has actual, real power. It's not even the same league to compare it with opening borders with Mexico though. If it was the other foot, that's like saying we should have open borders with Greece or another country that would only be a detriment.

[Jubal]

Tbh, the Leave campaign are making a key part of their platform that we'll easily be able to rapidly get as good a trade deal with the US and other countries as we would in the EU. I'm not sure Obama put it as nicely as he could, but in that situation where Leave are telling people what the US is going to do, hearing from the US what the US think they're going to do is actually kind of fair enough IMO. You can't base a campaign on "do X, then the rest of the world will do Y" and not expect the rest of the world to have their say on what they think about that.

The idea that the EU is this monolithic block that's out to get us is just wrong, there's no reason to suppose we'll get "portugaled at every opportunity". We've historically been one of the strongest countries in Europe on influencing legislation and pulling it towards our position, we've lost a little influence in recent years because UKIP MEPs never bloody turn up and Cameron is a armadilloty negotiator but the UK government still votes with the majority on the council the vast majority of the time and we with our allies (especially the Danish and Dutch) form a pretty strong voting block in the Council. I just don't understand what this idea that the EU is a single, concentrated entity that's just out to fleece us is based on other than bullarmadillo media reporting. In any case it's much more likely we'd get problems of that sort if we left, because unlike internal negotiations where we can cobble together a majority in support of us, an external negotiation can be blocked by any individual member so then it only takes 1 of 27 to decide they don't like the deal we're proposing instead of 15 of 28. That would mean that getting a free trade deal that didn't permit free movement to Europe would be extremely difficult, because it would only take one of the Eastern European countries to dig their heels in to stop it even if the French and Germans were OK with that.

[Clockwork]

The idea that the EU is out to fleece us is something to do with the £73-350m per week we spend on it. I thought that was one of the more obvious things but nevermind. Nobody has ever said that the EU is one single monolithic entity though, nobody thinks that, nobody writes that. Unless satire or making somesuch commentary.


Why would we suddenly have to pay more? Because we threatened to upset the balance of things. Since forever that's pissed people off. Imagine you're high up in Brussels and you're part of the management of all the countries and what they contribute/get out of it and then suddenly one threatens to leave. That unnamed hypothetical country is coerced back in, you're still not best pleased with it so you just casually up the amount they need to give by 1% and decrease the amount they get back by 20%. That could easily be the sentiment of a lot of higher ups, proper slimy Europhiles that love everything about the EU and have the flag as their bedcovers.


It's not that what the US is going to do that's the problem or what he says they'll do or not do. It's that he's asking UK voters to vote a certain way when really he doesn't have a clue what voters in either camp are voting for. Unless he's been living here in secret for the past years. In which case, my bad, go for it Obama.


Why would UKIP members turn up when their platform is that they don't need the EU? Their entire thing is not playing ball with the EU.


The EU parliament is just more paperwork and busywork and unnecessary laws and people making themselves feel important. It's a giant circlejerk of the type of people you purport to be against, needless businessmen and lawyers and accountants, being overpaid for doing jack armadillo. portugal man, countries are big enough to run, they already have so much administration bullarmadillo there'a already too many bands of power and regulations. All of a sudden, breaking free from all of it seems like the right idea.


Realised I goofed minorly