I spoke for Remain at about 50 debates during the campaign. Whether they were in village halls, church halls, schools or pubs, I mentioned science.
The EU sensibly allocates its science funds by competitive bids and for years a lot has come to universities and research companies in Britain. The benefits for a society in which there are a lot of scientists and science work go beyond simple economics. There is a cultural benefit too from having more people in our community who think with the logical, disciplined mind of a scientist.
If the Leave vote is followed through we will lose ability to apply for that. There is also private investment in research that will tend to go to institutions within EU states.
Science in the UK is already suffering after the Leave vote, before the exit process has really begun.
The BBC has this report that the UK is already a less attractive place for science.
Grants are being turned down. European institutions want partners within the EU for good, not in Britain which might leave before projects are complete. Jobs are lost. Lives disrupted.
In an example from the BBC story:
Dr Nick Wright is one of the UK’s brightest young astronomers at Keele University in Staffordshire. A long-standing collaborator recently told him that he was applying for a travel and accommodation grant, which would enable astronomers from research groups across Europe to work together on similar research projects at each other’s universities.
But Dr Wright was told that there were concerns from others involved in the application that a UK institution’s involvement in the project would harm its chances – so Dr Wright and his group were asked not to be involved.
I heard exactly the same when I was in Oxfordshire last weekend at a conference of Liberal Democrat members. There were many scientists at the event who had similar reports.
Remain won the vote in Oxford and among scientists across Britain. During the campaign BBC News in the East of England could not find a single scientist to speak for Leave – an historian was brought on instead.
If we have a further referendum or if the General Election is to be fought with Brexit / No Brexit being a central issue, we need to reach out and convert people who voted Leave on 23 June.
The question for us to answer is how to we persuade people in, for example Hartlepool, that the damage to UK science matters to them?
* Antony Hook was #2 on the South East European list in 2014, is the English Party's representative on the Federal Executive and produces this sites EU Referendum Roundup.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Lib Dems pick Richard Kilpatrick as candidate for the Greater Manchester Mayoral election
The Joy of Six 1538
Is Kier Starmer the new John Major?
Peter Martin
Paul Reynolds
Tom Bailey
Chris Cory
expats
17 Comments
“If the leave vote is follow through…” – you don’t seem to have accepted that the leave vote will and must be followed through.
Leave voters aren’t saying science doesn’t matter, they’re saying we don’t necessarily have to make our contribution to it via the EU.
Add to this Vince Cable’s comments about long term investment.
The Leave vote is destabilising and creates uncertainty.
I honestly struggle to see why the Leave voters should care, and I say that as one who will most likely have to switch passport to allow my partner to get into things like Erasmus and Horizon20.
The most instructive things in politics of late have been two things: the utter contempt supposed liberals have for democracy in their twin-fanged attack on the result. Either they want a revote because the result wasn’t the right one, thus playing into the whole “If the EU don’t like a result, they get a country to redo the vote”. Or they accuse the Leave voters of being racists thickos who couldn’t walk and chew bubblegum at the same time.
For nigh on thirty years the Orange book liberals, either in the Labour party or the LibDems (remember that this party is the fusion of the right of the Labour party and the Liberal party), have claimed that there is no economic alternative as communities across this country have been decimated. Legitimate grievances have been brushed aside by the contented classes who have done very well out of globalism by either claiming the complainers are ‘chavs’ who can best be described by the caricatures of Benefit Street, or that they’re far left rabble.
The most pressing lesson that the Brexit vote teaches us is that if we leave too many people excluded and we leave them with a vote, one day when they’ve suffered one injustice too many, they’ll destroy the cozy established myths that have allowed liberals in both Labour and the LibDems to coast in inertia for so long.
In Labour, this is tearing that party apart. In this party? It seems like a reflexive clinging-on to discredited centrism, whatever that means nowadays. It means raking out whatever is left of TINA from the coals that neglect and contempt have put us all in.
As a bi-national, I can live on as officially Swedish. I resent having been made to chose nationality. For my partner, though, of a hundred generation of Surreyites, it feels like he’s been robbed of his. Thanks to the criminal neglect of the C2DEs of this country where they’ve no option but to put up two fingers to us all and say. “I don’t believe a single thing you say. You always lie. You’ve always lied. Our communities are dying. So now you tell us, threaten us, not to vote this way? Well, screw you. I’ll vote out.”
Surely EU science funds have always been (and continue to be) allocated on the scientific merit of the contribution that can be made, not on the nationalities of the applicants?
– Innocent face.
David,
Yes they have been allocated on that basis and we’ve done well as a member of the club.
If I told my Swimming Club I was planning to leave I would not expect the coach to see much merit in giving me as much of her time.
If I told my workplace I was planning to leave I would not expect my practise manager to see so much merit in securing briefs for me that help develop my career.
This is a big problem. Loss of goodwill.
I expect there are also legal questions. If the UK leaves during a project will the discoveries made still be protected under European patent law? Who knows at this stage. People don’t want to gamble big resources on that.
Colin,
I think there is a lot in your analysis. A lot of people in this country feel they have been left behind. We should never have got to this position.
If we don’t fix it Leaving will be not the only problem that results from it.
We have got to make the benefits of things like science real to more people.
You could substitute for science many things – the rule of law, human rights, immigration are I think a few examples.
We can do so much better than what’s been done. I think the Liberal Democrats are the people to do it.
You ask how do we explain to Leave voters?
Throughout the Remain campaign the rhetoric did not reflect what many people saw or felt. It was a one size fits all message. In my area we have seen a succession of industries purchased by overseas companies then closed. Some see globalisation (and in their minds internationalisation) as something to be feared. Many feel their lives are out of their control.
I doubt if 1% of the constituents could tell you what ERASMUS meant, yet I heard it mentioned about 30 times at the emergency meeting the Scottish Lib Dems called after the referendum vote. We have a way to go to capture the hearts and minds of the majority of voters. To do that, as a party, we need to be representative of the communities we seek to represent.
I’ve also heard much debate about us getting back in the EU. What if the EU changes? With a series of European elections approaching – what does the future hold? It is not a constant. There is a subtlety in language between saying we want to be in the EU vs. we want to be an outward facing, pro-European party. We could end up with egg on our face if the EU evolves into something we don’t want to be part of, or if others start to exit.
I hear continual negative rhetoric. We should stop taking our country down. We should be reaching out, demonstrating leadership, instilling confidence. The world has not stopped turning. We need to get up, dust ourselves down and lead from the front.
Science projects are typically funded for at least three years and require a couple of years developing the proposal. Any proposal that involves the UK will appear unrealistic, so UK institutions will not be included. The bids are competitive and to date the UK has done well, but the assessment committees cannot be expected to ignore Brexit.
Germany, which already funds Scientific research better than the UK, is an obvious beneficiary, but France, Benelux, Sweden and others will also look to filling the gap. Research scientists will follow the funding of course.
Anti-immigrant leavers will be encouraged to know that their vote will already be having an effect on net migration, we can only ask if they care whether losing rather than attracting the brightest and best matters to them.
Sorry Anthony but you have not explained why science should matter to the people of Hartlepool. You mention Keele University and their fine Astronomy teaching. In the distant past that same Department taught me how to measure the height of mountains on the moon and it’s even mentioned on my degree certificate as a subsidiary. However my moon mountain measuring ability has no practical everyday use to me or anyone I’ve ever met. So even as a graduate of that Department I would struggle to explain to anyone why it should matter to them. I’m none the wiser after reading your article. Even if you can explain the importance, Brexit promised to match lost EU grants etc. from saved contributions. Of course, May was Remain so all promises are null and void. So that needs clarification.
I think if you want to convince anyone you’ll have to find some critical life saving medical research that you can prove beyond reasonable doubt is lost due to Brexit and the Government are refusing to step in. Keele and Astronomy, dear to my own heart as they are, will most likely reinforce irrelevance rather than demonstrating something critical that impacts on ordinary lives.
Stevan,
“Sorry Anthony but you have not explained why science should matter to the people of Hartlepool.”
No I have not attempted to. I am asking a question.
Hi Yvonne,
Thank you. I think you are right that people have seen “globalisation” as a threat and many people think it means job losses.
Martin,
Thanks that is very useful information that underlines the damage that will be done to the UK.
Whilst I understand the sentiment behind the question, I’m not sure if it is actually worth attempting. Listening to yesterday’s Brexit Street broadcast (in the circa 5:40~5:55 slot on BBC R4), a very telling point was made: scientific research “just don’t figure in peoples lives” in fact it was worse than that, many people couldn’t even see the EU regional funding, even though they might be using and benefiting from, facilities that only exist because of EU regional funding!
Hence I suspect what will be needed is a government that does exactly what previous governments have been accused of in the past (over Europe) and not listen to the ‘shouty’ people. Hence sorry Leaver’s, you only represent 1 in 3 voters, you have no credible plans that the majority of your supporters agree on and hence whilst we thank you for your opinion the government will heed the opinion of the majority…
“No I have not attempted to. I am asking a question.”
Then I’ve given you an answer and it’s not Astronomy at Keele.
@ Roland “Hence sorry Leaver’s, you only represent 1 in 3 voters, you have no credible plans that the majority of your supporters agree on and hence whilst we thank you for your opinion the government will heed the opinion of the majority…” – at the risk of stating the obvious, in the EU referendum the result was based on those who got a majority – if people CHOSE not to vote, then too bad so Brexit IS the majority. Here is the result officially announced: “https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jaigq_p2bt0” – PS EU money is actually UK money: we are a net contributor – peace, out.
Correct me if I’ve missed something. But the government should just replace all EU funding for science with British funding. This we can definitely afford because we are a net EU contributor.
As for the immigration issue, no sensible immigration restriction policy will prevent high-value researchers travelling, who almost always only move if they’ve already got a job or a grant. There are plenty of non-EU scientists in the UK as it is demonstrating this point.
@Leave The EU – Your fanaticism for Brexit is clouding your thinking! The problem ‘Leave’ have is whilst they scored with the Referendum, they as a group don’t have a plan or manifesto, hence the exact form of Brexit will be determined by those in Westminster. Which given the differing ‘Leave’ campaign groups and the discussions here, is almost guaranteed not satisfy all the dreams of those who voted leave. Hence the government will have to stand up to the ‘Brexit’ crowd and go with a decision that will gain the support of the majority of the electorate – if they wish either to be re-elected or not be lynched…
@Stephen R Wigmore – The problem is that UK organisations are being discouraged from applying for EU funding in the next round of funding that is about to start, that will result in funds being released post-Brexit. So the need for the UK government to step in with funding guarantees is now and not post-Brexit.
However, this overlooks the simple fact that much work is collaborative, so whilst a specialist UK company could be a partner in an EU-wide project and thus gain benefits from being ‘in’ a consortium. Outside of the EU science programme, they have to find other potential collaborators or standalone either of which could be significantly more expensive.
As for our EU contributions, until we see what the UK government is proposing as its Brexit strategy, we have no real idea as to what monies, if any, will become available for redistribution.
As for immigration policy, the challenge for the UK post-Brexit is both keeping and attracting high-value researchers. I expect many UK researchers and some research organisations to relocate into the EU, so that they can benefit from EU grant monies. Remember the brain drain of the 70’s and 80’s?