Who needed the EU? – Brexit Britain had a vibrant scientific research programme ready

Part III of Facts4EU’s review of the UK's alignment with EU’s ‘Horizon Europe’

Montage © Facts4EU.Org 2024

Rishi Sunak should have walked away from the EU after three years of EU time-wasting

A Brexit Facts4EU.Org Series

Part I – Why is the UK paying billions to the EU again?
Part II - Why should scientific powerhouse Brexit Britain subsidise the EU’s scientists?
Part III – Who needed the EU? – Brexit Britain had a vibrant new scientific research programme ready (This report)

In Parts I and II of our report on scientific research, we showed how the EU’s programme (called ‘Horizon Europe’) is typically expensive and was tied up in political wrangles and obstructionism from the EU Commission for years.

Today we reveal the vibrant alternative from Brexit Britain, now obsolete because of the UK finally being allowed to join the EU's version, together with the comments from the Minister responsible.

The UK remains a world leader in scientific research

It’s time for the scientific powerhouse that is Brexit Britain to provide a global alternative to scientific research co-operation.

It is a simple fact that scientists have always shared their research, via published papers in respected journals. There was nothing to stop talented EU scientists from coming to the UK and joining research teams. Given the number of visas being issued by the Home Office we would have barely noticed the difference.

Facts4EU asked a leading British scientist for his views. He told us :-

“Horizon Europe was always considered a minor player in terms of research funding. My own view is that it represented poor value for money and collaboration was (and still is) much easier outside of EU structures. It’s focus on harmonisation meant that it didn’t always tie in with UK ambitions to focus on the science. Our department still has strong links across the EU, but this is all outside EU structures.”
“It’s sad that the EU have always used the programme to assert political “control”, especially during negotiations, as was and is the case with Switzerland becoming an associate member.”
- A leading British scientist speaking to Facts4EU, 02 Aug 2023

Was he right about Horizon Europe being "a minor player" in UK research funding?

To answer this question Facts4EU turned to a 32-page report from no less an august body than The Royal Society. In 2015 the UK was still a member of the European Union and The Royal Society looked at the EU's role in funding UK research and development, according to the official definition of this, used by the Office for National Statistics.

The report looks at a seven-year period, to ensure the percentages below are representative over time.

Brexit Facts4EU.Org Summary

Who funded UK research and development?

EU funding : 3%
Non-EU funding : 97%

[Source: 2015 report from the Royal Society.]

Only 3% of the UK's research and development was funded by the EU

Here is what the Government said last year

At the end of June last year (2023) the then Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, the Rt Hon Chloe Smith MP, gave a speech at the “Creating a Scientific Superpower Conference” in London. She rightly talked about :

“the exceptional success of our world-leading tech sector and much more. We boast the largest sector of that kind in Europe and the third largest in the world - behind only the US and China.
“And when you look at the AI, Fintech and Bio-tech sectors, the UK is an international trailblazer. We’ve created more billion dollar ‘Unicorn’ tech start-ups than Germany, France and Sweden combined.
“Last year, we became just the third country to date with a tech sector valued at $1 trillion. And it’s a similarly exceptional story in life-sciences. The life sciences sector alone employs around 300,000 people throughout the country – the vast majority of them outside London and the South East.”

‘Pioneer’ – the Brexit Britain globally-facing approach to scientific research co-operation

At the end of June last year the UK Government was still optimistic that the EU Commission would come to its senses. The UK has by far the best scientific expertise in Europe. As ever, the Commission failed to deliver.

Negotiations with the EU did not recommence until the autumn. Even in June the UK Government was preparing to go its own way. Here is the then Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology again :-

The Rt Hon Chloe Smith MP, then Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology

“One of the ways UK researchers, universities, and businesses have been supported in the past is through Horizon Europe.
“We are actively moving forward with discussions on the UK’s involvement in this programme and I know this might be an important theme for many here today. We’re clear that we hope these negotiations will be successful. But we’re equally clear that our participation must work for UK researchers, businesses and taxpayers too.

“So, although association is our hope, if we are unable to secure it on fair and appropriate terms, we will instead implement our bold and ambitious alternative – Pioneer. It would receive the same amount of funding as the UK would have paid under Horizon from 2021 to 2027.
“Pioneer would trail-blaze innovative new funding approaches with significant, targeted investment in R&D, infrastructure and programmes to attract and retain exceptional talent.
“Our priority in all of this is to ensure the UK’s R&D sector receives the maximum level of support to continue ground-breaking research and collaboration with international partners. That’s what Pioneer would achieve. And we have been engaging with the sector to shape the best possible plan for the UK’s continued scientific and technological advancement.”

Here is why the UK's 'Pioneer' was better for the UK's scientists

Pioneer would have received the same amount of funding as the UK would have paid to the EU to be part of Horizon had we associated from 2021 to 2027. This means the UK would have invested around £14.6 billion in Pioneer to the end of 2027 to 2028, including the support the UK was already providing to the sector via the Horizon Guarantee.

Based on the arrangement within the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA) the UK would have expected to make a contribution to Horizon that exceeds receipts to UK entities. Under Pioneer, all our funding would have gone to UK scientists and innovators.

Over the last EU budget period (2014 to 2020), the UK’s receipts from Horizon 2020 fluctuated but if you simply took the average receipts over that period, UK scientists would have received over £3 billion more under Pioneer.

Crucially, the UK is now merely an Associate Member of Horizon Europe and has no say over final budget allocations. Under the Pioneer scheme, the UK could have decided for itself how to deploy monies in the UK's best interests.

Observations

Science is about innovation - something the UK does well

The EU Commission’s modus operandi is to centralise and control. In this they are no different from the former Soviet Union. They also have a ‘precautionary approach’ to everything, which has the effect of pouring cold water on innovative thinking and invention. This is the precise opposite of what scientific research is all about.

It simply is not the case that the United Kingdom had to sign up to a grossly-inflated and bureaucratic programme such as ‘Horizon Europe’ in order for international scientific co-operation to take place. Scientists have always shared information – since long before the EU was a gleam in the federalists’ eyes.

Given that the EU Commission once again sought to punish the UK for leaving its sclerotic empire, and given that it failed to abide by its commitments under the international treaty known as the ‘EU-UK Trade and Co-operation Agreement’, our view was that it was time for the Prime Minister to walk away.

The UK’s new Pioneer Programme

As with the enormous success of Brexit Britain’s ‘Turing’ alternative to the EU’s Erasmus+ programme for education, so the new Pioneer Programme could have been far more successful than the EU’s controlling efforts for scientific research.

The money was there. The talent was there. All that was required was the political muscle once again to say to the EU: “We’re going our own (global) way, thank you.”

We urged the Government to ditch the Horizon negotiations with the EU and to go full steam ahead with Pioneer. This would have meant another example of "taking back control" and would have represented another Brexit Benefit.

We must get reports like this out there

Reports like the one above take far longer to research, write and produce than many people realise. If they were easy, readers would see other organisations also producing these daily. However, there’s little point in the Facts4EU.Org team working long hours, seven days-a-week, if we lack the resources to promote them effectively – to the public, to MPs, and to the media. This is where you come in, dear reader.

Facts4EU.Org needs you today

We are a 'not for profit' team (we make a loss) and any payment goes towards the actual work, not plush London offices, lunch or taxi expenses, or other luxuries of some organisations.

We badly need more of our thousands of readers to become members, to support this work. Could this be you, today? It's quick and easy, we give you a choice of two highly secure payment providers, and we do NOT ask you for further support if you pay once. We just hope you keep supporting us. Your membership stays anonymous unless you tell us otherwise.

Please don't assume that other people will keep us going - we don't receive enough to survive and we need your help today. Could you help us? We rely 100% on public contributions from readers like you.

If you believe in a fully-free, independent, and sovereign United Kingdom, please join now by clicking on one of the links below or you can use our Support page here. You will receive a personal, friendly ‘thank you’ from a member of our team within 24 hours. Thank you.

[ Sources: Dept for for Science, Innovation and Technology | The Royal Society | Office for National Statistics | EU Commission ] Politicians and journalists can contact us for details, as ever.

Brexit Facts4EU.Org, Mon 19 Feb 2024

Click here to go to our news headlines

Please scroll down to COMMENT on the above article.
And don't forget to actually post your message after you have previewed it!

Something to say about this? Scroll down for reader comments

Since before the EU Referendum, Brexit Facts4EU.Org
has been the most prolific researcher and publisher of Brexit facts in the world.

Supported by MPs, MEPs, & other groups, our work has impact.

We think facts matter. Please donate today, so that we can continue to ensure a clean Brexit is finally delivered.

Any credit card user

Quick One-off

From £5 - £1,000

Monthly

From £3 per month

Paypal Users Only - Choose amount first

Quick One-off

Monthly

PLEASE NOTE IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT : You can write your comment under any existing comments below. After you have clicked to preview your comment, you MUST then click on the CAPTCHA system and send you comment, for it to be published. Thank you!

Reader Comments 4

1. Sparky , Monday, February 19, 2024, 06:25:

Quote from the FT from 26 June 2023.
.
"Senior UK science and industry leaders have warned that delays in negotiating membership of the EU’s €95.5bn Horizon science programme are “absurd” and damage UK aspirations to be a science superpower."
.
"Industry groups, including the British Chambers of Commerce and MakeUK, the manufacturers body, also urged the both sides to “redouble” their efforts to reach an agreement. “Business is clear — our participation in Horizon Europe is a win for the UK and a win for the EU,” said William Bain, head of trade policy at the BCC."

2. David , Monday, February 19, 2024, 09:21:

Reply to Sparky re comment 1.
The Financial Times is no longer an objective source of information regarding the EU.
Like the Guardian and the majority of newspapers and the Establishment in general, it disagreed with the Referendum result
and is forever bemoaning BRINO (Brexit in name only) which is what we have today.
Just as the Euro was introduced for political not financial reasons in order to help bring about a federal United
States of Europe, so Horizon Europe is primarily about the politics rather than the science.
The politics being that the Eurocrats want a harmonised European scientific research programme for a federal
United States of Europe.

3. Ashley Great Britain , Monday, February 19, 2024, 10:19:

The EU could see that we were serious about pioneer and it was almost fully started. They couldn't allow us to out perform Them, And use our own money to finance our progress.
Now we will be paying them vast amounts for only a 3% financial contribution in return.
We lose our money, We lose independence of thought, Our work and success is re badged as EU progress, The rejoiner blob cling onto yet another EU institution.
After 3 years of EU blocking and intransigence, The UK Gov should have ploughed on with Pioneer regardless. Yet again our Gov let us down and make us a laughing stock.
They just can't bring themselves to actually leave the EU.
To say we're angry about this is an understatement.

4. jon iivesey , Monday, February 19, 2024, 18:34:

If you ask a dumb question, you will get stupid answers. If you ask "Who needed the EU?" you will just get a mass of self-pity about how hopeless the UK is without its wise elder brother the EU, and about how we risked a future without sandwiches, and so on and so on.
Basically, if you ask a question like that, you might as well say you don't know how politics is done. Joining the Horizon program is just the outcome of a long-running campaign by the pressure groups that has been allowed to take over UK Science.
The Science that you read about in High School has not existed since about the Forties. Today, what we call Science has become an industry with a tiny number of highly talented thinkers, plus a huge number of mediocre people in Government and in Universities, who view Science as a stable career for themselves.
It's just another Farmers' Union, with very few good ides, but a lot of ability at organization aimed at extracting the maximum amount of money in order to go through the motions of "doing Science" which these days consists of writing papers about tiny advances, with tens and hundreds of authors taking the credit. These papers are then turned into credits that advance the careers of the people in question.
The guts of Science today is just "organization" - budget, payroll, facilities, spending, PR, administration, not really very different to your Town Hall. And what is the perfect source of "organization"? The entity that measures itself by how much it spends and how many people it employs? The EU.

Add comment:

Please note: Your email address is never published unless you choose to enter it.