‘Clean break’ Brexit plan triggers fears for EU research deal

Shift in alignment towards US sparks doubts over Horizon Europe association

September 12, 2019

Boris Johnson’s apparent desire for a “clean break” Brexit and wish to align with the US rather than the European Union have sparked fears that the UK may opt against joining the bloc’s next research programme.

The resignation as universities minister of Jo Johnson, who campaigned for Remain in the EU referendum, has added to fears about the government’s position on negotiating access to Horizon Europe, which starts in January 2021.

Joining the programme is likely to require the UK to pay the EU more than €7 billion (£6.2 billion) over the course of the seven-year programme, and could be jeopardised by a no-deal Brexit that poisons UK-EU relations.

Sir Chris Husbands, vice-chancellor of Sheffield Hallam University, suggested a broader shift under the Boris Johnson government towards looser alignment with the EU on issues such as defence could mean a “massive pivot away from a common regulatory framework, a common research base”.

Jo Johnson “may have started to realise that the chances of holding the sector in the European research space after a Boris Johnson Brexit were looking pretty slim”, he said. “And I think that’s a massive, massive challenge for us.”

Assurances that the UK government will seek association to the EU’s research programme date back to Theresa May’s government, and have “not come in the last six weeks from central government”, Sir Chris said. “The increasing sense is that what government wants to look for is a clean break.”

Gordon Marsden, Labour’s shadow universities minister, criticised the government’s failure to “produce anything...that would keep the sector feeling less apprehensive about a no-deal Brexit”.

“If no deal means our relationships with the EU end in discord and ugliness and we’re obliged to put more, or all, our eggs in the US basket, we become much less attractive as a global link mechanism” in research, Mr Marsden added.

But Lord Willetts, a former Conservative universities minister who backs a second EU referendum, said that there was “still a strand of pragmatism in the Conservative government” and there were “Brexiteers who can still see the value of research links to Europe and attracting students from around the world”.

“The paradox is that although a lot of us in the university and research community are worried about a hard Brexit, when it comes to universities and science the Boris Johnson government is actually quite pro; in many ways more pro than Theresa [May],” Lord Willetts said.

Jo Johnson announced that he would also stand down as an MP at the next election following a purge of moderate Tory MPs who opposed a no-deal Brexit. He said that serving in his brother’s government created an “unresolvable tension” between “family loyalty and the national interest”.

john.morgan@timeshighereducation.com

后记

Print headline: Hard Brexit plan triggers fears for EU research deal

登录 或者 注册 以便阅读全文。

请先注册再进行下一步

获得一个月的无限制地在线阅读网站内容。只需注册并完成您的职业简介.

注册是免费的,而且非常简单。一旦成功注册,您可以每个月免费阅读3篇文章。:

  • 获得编辑推荐文章
  • 率先获得泰晤士高等教育世界大学排名相关的新闻
  • 获得职位推荐、筛选工作和保存工作搜索结果
  • 参与读者讨论和公布评论
注册

相关文章

Reader's comments (1)

If the universities had spent 7 Billion of taxpayers money on projects involving people nearest to them over time maybe the result of the referendum would have been different. It is astonishing that the university sector did not see that disconnect. If the university sector wishes to continue with expensive projects which requires taxpayers money their policy needs to change. So instead of looking down on the immediate electorate around the university they may want to entice them in. One further step universities could take is to employ local staff in professional positions as opposed to only employing them as cleaners. That may be a start. What is clear universities need a reality check surrounding their employment policies. Think if the Lib Dems get into government that government will unravel very quickly. So start looking over your shoulder now.

欢迎反馈

Log in or register to post comments

评论最多

Recent controversy over the future directions of both Stanford and Melbourne university presses have raised questions about the role of in-house publishing arms in a world of commercialisation, impact agendas, alternative facts – and ever-diminishing monograph sales. Anna McKie reports

3 October