Brexit Penny Dropping?

[The Voice of Reason]

7 minutes ago, John Wright said:

Makes us even. Brexiteers haven’t honestly answered the legitimate question of what benefit will/has Brexit confer(red) on UK at any time pre referendum, post referendum and pre Brexit or post January 2021.

Of course there isn’t a possible, legitimate, response.

It was designed to do one thing, preserve the Tories. It hasn’t done that. And, frankly there’s no benefit to UK in preserving the Tories.

We share your pain at poor responses/unanswered questions. And have been suffering it for much, much longer.

OK

You ally yourself with Brexit Barney then.

I did have you down as being a bit more reasoned and articulate than him. 

Anyway the latest phase of this debate centered on the the UK participating in the Horizon project,during which I destroyed his analysis of the costs involved using information/ data he himself provided. He had no answer or rebuttal and you have not provided any either.

You say that Brexit was designed to protect the Tories ( for whom I hold no candle). Yes they were expecting a Remain vote ( as most of us were).

But the referendum question wasn’t “ do you support the Tories?” but  “do you think the UK should stay in the EU?” To which the UK said NO.

So stick that in your pipe and smoke it, as we used to say.

[John Wright]

23 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

OK

You ally yourself with Brexit Barney then.

I did have you down as being a bit more reasoned and articulate than him. 

Anyway the latest phase of this debate centered on the the UK participating in the Horizon project,during which I destroyed his analysis of the costs involved using information/ data he himself provided. He had no answer or rebuttal and you have not provided any either.

You say that Brexit was designed to protect the Tories ( for whom I hold no candle). Yes they were expecting a Remain vote ( as most of us were).

But the referendum question wasn’t “ do you support the Tories?” but  “do you think the UK should stay in the EU?” To which the UK said NO.

So stick that in your pipe and smoke it, as we used to say.

Except you’ve completely misunderstood the figures, even as published in the Torygraph. You’ve destroyed nothing, other than your own credibility.

I’ll try and explain.

Before Brexit the UK consistently got more out of horizon than it put in, by between 30% to 50% annually. So, between £800 million and  £1.3 billion each year.

There is no real discount, of £650 million, of any other sum. It’s illusory. The pro rata contribution for the balance of 2023 isn’t being charged. However, given applications can only go in from next week it’s unlikely there will be any grants or research programmes receiving funds before Q1 2024. The £650 million discount is Tory spin.

UK has been excluded, in effect, for 3 years.

Programme ends Q4 2027.

Contribution is subject to a cap. UK can now never get out more than it puts in. If it gets back less than £2.2 billion of its £2.6 billion annually it will be rebated the shortfall. That means if it only gets £2.1 billion it will get a £100 million rebate.

So the cost is never a fraction of the membership fee. Even if you take the £650m as a discount, then, over 4 years, to end 2027, it’s £150m a year or 3.846%.

Of course, the whole idea of Horizon isn’t just to finance research, it’s to encourage collaboration and working together in each others laboratories. That will now require a visa, either way. And for a couple of weeks, or a one month summer school the paperwork is disproportionate.

And that’s a benefit?

[The Voice of Reason]

13 minutes ago, John Wright said:

Except you’ve completely misunderstood the figures, even as published in the Torygraph. You’ve destroyed nothing, other than your own credibility.

I’ll try and explain.

Before Brexit the UK consistently got more out of horizon than it put in, by between 30% to 50% annually. So, between £800 million and  £1.3 billion each year.

There is no real discount, of £650 million, of any other sum. It’s illusory. The pro rata contribution for the balance of 2023 isn’t being charged. However, given applications can only go in from next week it’s unlikely there will be any grants or research programmes receiving funds before Q1 2024. The £650 million discount is Tory spin.

UK has been excluded, in effect, for 3 years.

Programme ends Q4 2027.

Contribution is subject to a cap. UK can now never get out more than it puts in. If it gets back less than £2.2 billion of its £2.6 billion annually it will be rebated the shortfall. That means if it only gets £2.1 billion it will get a £100 million rebate.

So the cost is never a fraction of the membership fee. Even if you take the £650m as a discount, then, over 4 years, to end 2027, it’s £150m a year or 3.846%.

Of course, the whole idea of Horizon isn’t just to finance research, it’s to encourage collaboration and working together in each others laboratories. That will now require a visa, either way. And for a couple of weeks, or a one month summer school the paperwork is disproportionate.

And that’s a benefit?

“Overall benefit is never judged in £ s d ever”. Now, who said that a few postings ago?

Visa, schisma  -  may be disproportionate to some but you’ll always have paperwork. Why should a collaboration between Spanish and UK laboratory people be subject to different rules as between Australian/ US and UK laboratory people?

This is one of the very essences of Brexit. Not just restrict yourself to working with just your closest neighbours but with those worldwide. Don’t put barriers in the way of working with the best talents worldwide.

Edited September 8, 2023 by The Voice of Reason
Wrote a bit more

[John Wright]

8 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

“Overall benefit is never judged in £ s d ever”. Now, who said that a few postings ago?

Quite. But read the final paragraph. 

And think, it’s a much worse deal, less beneficial, in all senses, than pre Brexit.

Of course, if you believed that it wasn’t just the £ s d, you wouldn’t be in favour of Brexit because you would  see it in the round.

I see you aren’t challenging the figures that demonstrate that you didn’t destroy Brexit Barney’s analysis.

[The Voice of Reason]

3 minutes ago, John Wright said:

Quite. But read the final paragraph. 

And think, it’s a much worse deal, less beneficial, in all senses, than pre Brexit.

Of course, if you believed that you wouldn’t be in favour of Brexit because you’ve see it in the round.

I see you aren’t challenging the figures that demonstrate that you didn’t destroy Brexit Barney’s analysis.

Read my amended post

[The Voice of Reason]

4 minutes ago, John Wright said:

Quite. But read the final paragraph. 

And think, it’s a much worse deal, less beneficial, in all senses, than pre Brexit.

Of course, if you believed that you wouldn’t be in favour of Brexit because you’ve see it in the round.

I see you aren’t challenging the figures that demonstrate that you didn’t destroy Brexit Barney’s analysis.

Read my amended post. Amended whilst you were writing your reply

[John Wright]

2 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

Read my amended post

All that amendment means is that we should be dismantling barriers with the rest of the world, rather than constructing/imposing them for the EU. 

[The Voice of Reason]

Just now, John Wright said:

All that amendment means is that we should be dismantling barriers with the rest of the world, rather than constructing them for the EU. 

I believe it’s called free trade.

[La Colombe]

Lol Oakeshott. 

 

 

[La Colombe]

It's a funny story.

[P.K.]

What does rejoining EU’s Horizon scheme mean for UK research and innovation?

Scientists relieved they can once again apply for funding from world’s largest such programme after three-year hiatus

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2023/sep/07/what-does-rejoining-eus-horizon-scheme-mean-for-uk-research-and-innovation

There is a "hidden" cost to brexit that rarely gets a mention. But it was in the previous link I posted thus:

Natalie Loiseau, French MEP, and one of the leaders of the UK-EU parliamentary partnership assembly said the deal was a sign of “a climate of restored trust”.

[P.K.]

In forcing a U-turn on Horizon, scientists are showing that the flaws of Brexit can be overcome

Where science leads, British industry must speak with one voice to force politicians to re-establish vital links with the European Union

It was a moment when it became clear that the high-water mark of Brexit had been reached and the tide was going out fast on what is now a disgraced and palpable failure. The universal and enthusiastic welcome to Thursday’s news that Britain was to rejoin the £81bn EU Horizon programme for scientific collaboration, albeit as an associate member, was a surprise – not least to the prime minister, who had dragged his feet for months in fear of the reaction of his Europhobic right!

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/sep/10/forcing-uturn-on-horizon-scientists-showing-flaws-of-brexit-can-be-overcome

[The Voice of Reason]

Back at you . KAPOW!

 

COMMENT

The EU still needs Britain more than Britain needs the EU

 

The haggling is almost finished. The paperwork has been drawn up, and someone in Number 10 may already be deciding which university gets to host the photoshoot.

The UK is thought to be on the cusp of rejoining the European Union’s massive Horizon science research project, with Rishi Sunak reportedly poised to sign off on a deal once he has run the numbers.

But the Prime Minister is right to hesitate. While Horizon does some good work, its contribution to the scientific output of the Continent has been overblown.

Nor has it identified how to translate that output into commercial success. In reality: Horizon needs the UK more than we need it. We may still be better off controlling our own research and how it is funded.

For staunch Remainers, ending our association with the EU’s €100bn (£85bn) Horizon research and innovation programme was a great Brexit blow.

While the post-Brexit Trade and Cooperation Agreement allowed associate membership, subsequent wrangling over the Northern Ireland protocol meant Britain was unable to activate it.

The Horizon programme funds science research across the Continent, pouring funds into universities and laboratories. Many in the scientific community were opposed to leaving the EU because it threatened this flow of money from Brussels. With an agreement on Northern Ireland reached, the path is clear for Britain to rejoin.

But while some researchers will welcome the news, this is not obviously the smart move for the UK.

It is true that a Horizon agreement could offer clarity, and allow the Continent to pool its scientific resources.

It could support Europe’s efforts to compete with the financial and intellectual clout of China and the US without dissolving those resources. Science and knowledge don’t respect national boundaries and the best minds may well come from anywhere.

But Horizon has its shortcomings.

First, the UK is Europe’s science powerhouse. On any measure you care to look at, Britain is ahead of any other major European country.

There are three British universities in the top seven worldwide (Oxford, Cambridge and Imperial) compared with none from Europe.

In the Top 100, the UK again dominates the list, with Germany, the Netherlands and Switzerland trailing far behind. The UK ranks second globally for Nobel Prizes awarded between 1901 to 2021, with 138, second only to the US (400), and well ahead of Germany (111) or France (71).

We can all debate the reasons why. But it underscores the point that, without the UK, any European science programme will be significantly weakened.UK is second only to the US

Second, and perhaps more importantly, the programme is a bureaucratic nightmare with, as a consequence, an increasingly dismal record on innovation.

Europe is now falling behind on science and technology: the number of patents filed on the Continent has dropped. In China, it is soaring. The EU made around 190,000 patent applications in 2021, compared with roughly 1.6 million for China and 600,000 for the US. The EU total was fewer than Japan chalks up by itself.

Meanwhile, the Continent is lagging in key areas such as artificial intelligence, with much of the ground-breaking research done in the US and China. And its ability to turn science into commercial projects has deteriorated.

Across the Continent there are few examples of universities spinning out research into new business in the way that Stanford, MIT, and increasingly the leading universities in Shanghai and Beijing do.

We may be assured that the Horizon programme is integral by those who have lobbied for us to join, but this isn’t borne out in actual results.

Funding for science is a worthwhile endeavour. But should it be supervised by a group of unelected EU technocrats? Or would they be at risk of backing those able to play the system rather than genuine innovators? Might they support EU scientists, and projects aligned with EU policies and priorities, over those based in Brexit Britain?

It is not uncommon for these sorts of programmes to favour certain areas, nor to hand out money based on past credentials or connections.

This may be done at the expense of projects which are more interesting or original. Committees often like to play it safe; but the best scientific developments can be radical and alchemistic.

Outside the EU, the UK needs to create and enhance new science and technology-based industries if it is to prosper.

There is nothing wrong with rejoining Horizon. But we need to be careful about how it is done, and make sure the money is well spent.

The Government had previously agreed that if the UK puts in 16pc more than it receives, it can leave the arrangement. Other associate members have automatic correction mechanisms at lower thresholds, and ministers here have been right to want to narrow this discrepancy. 

A spokesman for the Prime Minister has said Sunak is keen to seek “value for money for taxpayers”, and he is quite right.

The suggested UK contribution of £2bn a year is not insignificant. We should ask whether, instead of handing over vast chunks of money to Brussels, we could back the mavericks on UK soil – in our universities and beyond.

Edited September 11, 2023 by The Voice of Reason

[P.K.]

Like most sensible people if it's the Daily Mail, the Express, the Sun or the Telegraph and it's related to brexit then I don't believe a word of it.

Neither should you...

[The Voice of Reason]

2 hours ago, P.K. said:

Like most sensible people if it's the Daily Mail, the Express, the Sun or the Telegraph and it's related to brexit then I don't believe a word of it.

Neither should you...

What about the Times?
 

Look,  you and I can keep on playing Brexit ping pong with our chosen newspaper articles as our paddles/bats but it gets a bit tiresome don’t you think?